Developer’s plan for Green Belt site thrown out

Bicester Advertiser: . .

A BID for 14 homes at a garden centre on Green Belt land has been thrown out.

Cherwell District Council’s planning committee voted against the plans put forward by Yarnton Nurseries LLP.

Proposals for 43 homes in 2012 and 12 last December were submitted by the firm but later withdrawn.

Some 11 residents and Oxford Green Belt Network, Oxford Preservation Trust and the Campaign to Protect Rural England Oxfordshire objected.

Concerns included the “intrusive” nature of the plans and its impact on roads.

Yarnton Parish Council objected over concerns about the impact on sewers and the increasing development of the village.

The Oxford Green Belt Network warned it would “encroach” on the Green Belt.

Planning officer Caroline Ford urged refusal for the “inappropriate” plans.

Council lead member for planning Michael Gibbard said: “This would have had a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development and harmed its most important attributes.

“This alone attracted substantial weight for the refusal.”

The proposals, including an extension to the centre, lacked the infrastructure needed, Mr Gibbard added.

The developer said it would provide “much-needed housing” including four affordable homes. The developer refused to comment on the planning decision.

Comments (1)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:10am Mon 7 Apr 14

snert says...

Developers always spout out the same reason of "providing much needed housing" when they actually mean "much desired revenue with no concern to the residents, surrounding area or lack of infrastructure".

In fairness, almost every development of any kind will meet with objection for one reason or another and there are always the nimbys that object to everything on the grounds that they can object to it, most likely because the area is a habitat for that fantastic standard objection clause provided by the Great Crested Newt.
Developers always spout out the same reason of "providing much needed housing" when they actually mean "much desired revenue with no concern to the residents, surrounding area or lack of infrastructure". In fairness, almost every development of any kind will meet with objection for one reason or another and there are always the nimbys that object to everything on the grounds that they can object to it, most likely because the area is a habitat for that fantastic standard objection clause provided by the Great Crested Newt. snert
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

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