Government needs more time to rule on Bicester Village and Tesco scheme

11:10am Tuesday 5th February 2013 in News

Government officials say they need more time to consider whether a public inquiry should be held into controversial plans to move a Tesco store and expand Bicester Village.

Plans to build a new Tesco and expand Bicester Village into the supermarket’s former site in Pingle Drive were approved by Cherwell district councillors last month.

But because the Tesco planning application is against planning policy the decision was referred to the Government.

Such decisions are normally made within 28 days, but the National Planning Casework Unit has told the council it needs more time to consider the case.

Related links

Comments(7)

Severian says...
6:32pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Interesting Councillor Nick Mawer on another story commented that Cherwell District Council had no grounds on which to refuse the Tesco planning application.

Yet now we discover that the planning application is against government policy, so has been called in.

Typical that his party (in government) has a different view on what is important to the people of Bicester than his party (in local government).

Can't they just get together and get their act together?

Report this post »

interested123 says...
10:25pm Tue 5 Feb 13

may be the Gov could move Bicester Village to the Tesco site and let Tesco expand where it is - surely that would improve life for Bicester residents

Report this post »

Severian says...
11:09pm Tue 5 Feb 13

interested123 wrote:
may be the Gov could move Bicester Village to the Tesco site and let Tesco expand where it is - surely that would improve life for Bicester residents
It would certainly be better if BV was on the other side of the road, where its traffic wouldn't interfere with the people who live here.

If only we'd been able to have a proper say in the development of BV - the correct site for a centre like that would have been right next to the motorway so everyone could access it with the least inconvenience to residents.

Report this post »

Nick Mawer says...
10:12am Wed 6 Feb 13

Severian - I don't blame you for drawing the wrong conclusion from this article. It is shoddily written as is unfortunately much of the output of the Bicester Advertiser.

Report this post »

Simon Johns says...
7:38pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Nick Mawer wrote:
Severian - I don't blame you for drawing the wrong conclusion from this article. It is shoddily written as is unfortunately much of the output of the Bicester Advertiser.
What's the right conclusion then Councillor ?

Report this post »

Nick Mawer says...
12:08pm Thu 7 Feb 13

There is no Government policy that the approval of the Tesco and BV planning scheme is contrary to. If you read the approval of the planning application on Cherwell's own website you will see that CDC gave approval subject to a call in by the Secretary of State - it is the first condition. In the past there was a presumption against out of town development which is why the SoS refused previous attempts by Tesco to expand, however this was never a statute to my knowledge and also to my knowledge this presumption no longer applies since this government pretty much tore up the planning rule book. It is possible that there is some confusion here between what is mistakenly believed to be Government Policy and the fact that the District Council has a non statutory plan, and some saved policies from an out of date LDF.

Report this post »

Nick Mawer says...
1:32pm Tue 26 Feb 13

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has decided not to “call in” the Tesco planning application in Bicester and the expansion of the Bicester Village shopping centre.

In a letter received by Cherwell District Council last week the Secretary of State confirmed the reasons for his decision. They do not:
• involve a conflict with national policies
• have significant long term long term impact on economic growth and meeting housing need across a wider area than a single local authority
• have significant effects beyond their immediate locality
• give rise to substantial cross boundary or national controversy
• raise significant architectural and urban design issues
• or involve the interests of national security or foreign governments.

Nor does he consider there is any other sufficient reason to call the application in.

Sorry to disappoint you Severian

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree