DOCSLIB.ORG

(October 2014) Appendices Part 1 – Appendix 1-4

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(October 2014) Appendices Part 1 – Appendix 1-4 Cherwell Local Plan Submission SA Addendum for Main Modifications (October 2014) Appendices Part 1 – Appendix 1-4 Planning & EIA LUC LONDON Offices also in: Land Use Consultants Ltd Registered in England Design 43 Chalton Street Bristol Registered number: 2549296 Landscape Planning London NW1 1JD Glasgow Registered Office: Landscape Management T 020 7383 5784 Edinburgh 43 Chalton Street Ecology F 020 7383 4798 London NW1 1JD LUC uses 100% recycled paper Mapping & Visualisation [email protected] FS 566056 EMS 566057 Contents Appendix 1 1 Consultation responses to SA Addendum Scoping Report (June 2014) 1 Appendix 2 60 Updated review of relevant plans and programmes 60 Appendix 3 130 Updated baseline information 130 Appendix 4 162 Appraisal matrix for the SA of the alternatives for the overall distribution of additional development 162 Appendix 1 Consultation responses to SA Addendum Scoping Report (June 2014) Appendix 1 1 October 2014 Consultation responses received in relation to the Scoping Report of the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum for Main Modifications to the Cherwell Submission Local Plan Consultee (Ref) Response How addressed in SA Addendum Whether the draft reasonableness criteria in Chapter 2 of the Scoping Report are appropriate and are suitable for identifying reasonable alternatives. Natural England (2014 As far as the natural environment is concerned they appear to be Noted. The SA will take an ‘objectives-led’ SASR_1) appropriate and suitable for identifying reasonable alternatives. Clearly approach to the assessment that will these crude screening criteria are inadequate for the actual assessment address the sustainability issues identified. which would need to consider that effects of the proposal, not simply its It is proposed to use the same SA location. Framework as was developed originally for the SA of the Cherwell Local Plan. The reasonableness criteria were only proposed to be used as a high level sieve for determining whether potential strategic development sites were ‘reasonable alternatives’, prior to the detailed appraisal. English Heritage (2014 Paragraph 2.25 of the Addendum explains that there are four “reasonable The Council considers that the increase in SASR_3) alternatives” or “options” for accommodating additional growth, in spatial new housing is achievable without strategy terms. It is clear from paragraph 2.24 that one reason for significant changes to the strategy, vision selecting these options is that they are not within the Oxford Green Belt. or objectives of the submitted Local Plan, However, it is paragraph 2.31 and Table 2.1 that fully explains what is and that there are reasonable prospects of considered to be a “reasonable” alternative by reference to delivery over the plan period. As a result, “reasonableness criteria”, these being determined with reference to the alternatives that do not accord with the NPPF, NPPG and the strategic objectives of the Submission Local Plan. spatial strategy in the submitted Local Plan are not considered by the Council to be We are concerned that there is no assessment of these “reasonableness reasonable alternatives. The strategic criteria” in the Addendum. We appreciate that these are based on the release of Green Belt land was therefore National Planning Policy Framework and the strategic objectives of the considered not to be a reasonable Submission Local Plan, but as we explain below we consider that that the alternative, although the Local Plan is likely Addendum fails to fully recognise the significance of designated heritage to require an early review once the assets. We also appreciate that there will be an opportunity to comment on established process for considering the full the methodology used to identify “reasonable alternatives” during the strategic planning implications of the 2014 consultation on the Main Modifications, but we believe that there should be SHMA, including for any unmet needs in an objective assessment of the “reasonableness criteria” to inform the Appendix 1 2 October 2014 construction of these criteria as a starting point for the choice of strategic Oxford City, has been fully considered locations. jointly by all the Oxfordshire Councils. Similarly, strategic development outside the Green Belt that did not accord with the spatial strategy set out in the Submission Local Plan was not considered to be a reasonable alternative. This is now explained in Chapter 4 of the SA Addendum. The reasonableness criteria were only proposed to be used as a high level sieve for determining whether potential strategic development sites were ‘reasonable alternatives’, prior to the detailed appraisal. The reasonableness criteria were not proposed to be used for the options for the quantum of housing and jobs or the overall spatial distribution of additional development. Subsequent to the Scoping stage, the strategic development site options were considered against the reasonableness criteria, and there were very few options that did not comply with the reasonableness criteria, as discussed in Chapter 7. English Heritage (2014 We note that Table 2.1 includes heritage assets and refers to the The reasonableness criteria were only SASR_3) statement in paragraph 132 of the NPPF that substantial harm to or loss of proposed to be used as a high level sieve designated assets of the highest significance should be wholly exceptional. for determining whether potential strategic However, paragraph 132 also states “Substantial harm to or loss of a development sites were ‘reasonable grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional”. There is alternatives’, prior to the detailed therefore also a clear presumption against substantial harm to the appraisal. Subsequent to the Scoping significance of these lower grade designated assets (which can also occur stage, the strategic development site through development within the setting of the heritage asset). options were considered against the reasonableness criteria, and there were This is confirmed at the start of paragraph 132; “When considering the very few options that did not comply with impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated Appendix 1 3 October 2014 heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation” the reasonableness criteria, as discussed in and later in the same paragraph; “As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any Chapter 7. However, in line with English harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification”. Heritage’s concerns, lower grade designated assets and Conservation Areas “Great weight” is the same degree of consideration that paragraph 115 of were added into the reasonableness the NPPF states should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty criterion relating to heritage assets, and in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This is cited in Table 2.1, which considered when reviewing whether explains that locations within the Cotswolds AONB will not be considered to strategic development site options be reasonable alternatives. The approach in the Addendum to designated complied with the reasonableness criteria heritage assets is therefore inconsistent with that to designated landscapes or not. and is not in conformity with the NPPF. It should also be noted that although not specifically mentioned in paragraph 132, the Glossary to the NPPF confirms that Conservation Areas are designated heritage assets. In the wake of the Barnwell Manor Decision (Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Limited v East Northamptonshire District Council and others 2014 EWCA Civ 137) there has been general agreement on the parity of the 'special regard' to be had to listed buildings and the ‘special attention' to be afforded to Conservation Areas, so there is no prima facie case for treating Conservation Areas differently. It is also important to note that paragraph 132 actually relates to the determination of planning applications – paragraph 126 relates to plan- making and advises that local planning authorities should “recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance”. Paragraph 133 also relates to decision-making but states “Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss” (or four specified circumstances apply). It is clear from this there is in every such case a presumption against substantial harm to or total loss of significance of any designated heritage asset, which has to be overcome by proving that it is 'necessary', i.e. that there is no alternative to that proposal if the substantial public benefits are to be achieved (or else that an even more stringent set of criteria all apply). Considering sites as “reasonable alternatives” that would or could cause substantial harm to designated heritage assets is thus clearly Appendix 1 4 October 2014 against the express intent of national policy and such sites should not be considered as “reasonable” alternatives. In our opinion, therefore, the draft reasonableness criteria as set out in Table 2.1 fail to fully reflect the importance given to all heritage assets, particularly designated heritage assets (which include Conservation Areas), by the NPPF, and are inconsistent in their approach to designated heritage assets and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cake and Cockhorse
    CAKE AND COCKHORSE BANBURY HISTORICAL SOCIETY Summer 2012 £2.50 Volume 18 Number 9 ISSN 6522-0823 BANBURY HISTORICAL SOCIETY Registered Charity No. 269581 Website: www.banburyhistory.org President The Lord Saye and Sele Chairman Dr Barrie Trinder, 5 Wagstaff Way, Olney, Bucks. MK46 5FD (tel. 01234 712009; email: <[email protected]>) Cake and Cockhorse Editorial Committee Editor: Jeremy Gibson, Harts Cottage, Church Hanborough, Witney, Oxon. OX29 8AB (tel. 01993 882982; email: <[email protected]>) Assistant editors: Deborah Hayter (commissioning), Beryl Hudson (proofs) Hon. Secretary: Hon. Treasurer: Simon Townsend, G.F. Griffiths, Banbury Museum, 39 Waller Drive, Spiceball Park Road, Banbury, Banbury OX16 2PQ Oxon. OX16 9NS; (tel. 01295 753781; email: (tel. 01295 263944; email: <[email protected]>) <[email protected]>). Publicity: Hon. Research Adviser: Deborah Hayter, Brian Little, Walnut House, 12 Longfellow Road, Charlton, Banbury, Banbury OX17 3DR Oxon. OX16 9LB; (tel. 01295 811176; email: (tel. 01295 264972). <[email protected]>) Other Committee Members Colin Cohen, Chris Day, Helen Forde, Beryl Hudson, Clare Jakeman Membership Secretary Mrs Margaret Little, c/o Banbury Museum, Spiceball Park Road, Banbury, Oxon. OX16 2PQ (email: <[email protected]>). Details of the Society's activities and publications will be found on the back cover. © 2012 Banbury Historical Society on behalf of its contributors. Cake and Cockhorse The magazine of the Banbury Historical Society, issued three times a year. Volume 18 Summer 2012 Number Nine Joyce Hoad, Swing in Banburyshire: ed. Barrie Trinder New light on the riots of 1830 286 John Dunleavy Maffiking at Banbury: Official and Unofficial 301 Deborah Hayter Snippets from the Archives: 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Cake and Cockhorse
    Cake and Cockhorse The magazine of the Banbury Historical Society, issued three times a year. Volume 16 Number Two Spring 2004 Thomas Ward Boss Reminiscences of Old Banbury (in 1903) 50 Book Reviews Nicholas Cooper The Lost Architectural Landscapes of Warwickshire: Vol. 1 — The South, Peter Bolton 78 Nicholas J. Allen Village Chapels: Some Aspects of rural Methodism in the East Cotswolds and South Midlands, 1800-2000, Pauline Ashridge 79 Brian Little Lecture Reports 80 Peter Gaunt The Cromwell Association at Banbury, 24 April 2004 83 Obituaries Brian Little Ted Clark ... ... ... 84 Barrie Trinder Professor Margaret Stacey ... 85 Banbury Historical Society Annual Report and Accounts, 2003 86 In our Summer 2003 issue (15.9) Barrie Trinder wrote about the various memoirs of Banbury in the last two centuries. With sixteen subjects he could only devote a paragraph to each. One that caught my eye was Thomas Ward Boss (born 1825), long-time librarian at the Mechanics' Institute. Then I realised I had a copy of the published version of his talk delivered one hundred and one years ago, in March 1903. Re-reading it, I found it quite absorbing, a wonderful complement to George Herbert's famous Shoemaker's Window, a reminiscence of Banbury in the 1830s and later. On the assumption that few are likely to track down copies in local libraries, it seems well worthwhile to reprint it here, from the original Cheney's version. There are a few insignificant misprints, but, especially in view of the sad demise of our oldest Banbury business, it is good to reprint a typical piece of their work.
    [Show full text]
  • Electoral Changes) Order 2015
    Draft Order laid before Parliament under section 59(9) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009; draft to lie for forty days pursuant to section 6(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, during which period either House of Parliament may resolve that the Order be not made. DRAFT STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2015 No. LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND The Cherwell (Electoral Changes) Order 2015 Made - - - - Coming into force in accordance with article 1(2) and (3) Under section 58(4) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009( a) (“the Act”) the Local Government Boundary Commission for England(b) (“the Commission”) published a report dated May 2015 stating its recommendations for changes to the electoral arrangements for the district of Cherwell. The Commission has decided to give effect to the recommendations. A draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and a period of forty days has expired and neither House has resolved that the instrument be not made. The Commission makes the following Order in exercise of the power conferred by section 59(1) of the Act: Citation and commencement 1. —(1) This Order may be cited as the Cherwell (Electoral Changes) Order 2015. (2) Except for article 6, this Order comes into force— (a) for the purpose of proceedings preliminary or relating to the election of councillors, on the day after it is made; (b) for all other purposes, on the ordinary day of election of councillors in 2016. (3) Article 6 comes into force— (a) for the purpose of proceedings preliminary or relating to the election of councillors, on 15th October 2018; (b) for all other purposes, on the ordinary day of election of councillors in 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • The Local Government Boundary Commission for England O
    SHEET 2, MAP 2 Proposed electoral division boundaries in Banbury B 4 M 3 1 2 0 4 4 0 0 A WARDINGTON CP REET MAIN ST D A THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND O R ll e M w A r e H h Hanwell T C ELECTORAL REVIEW OF OXFORDSHIRE U BOURTON CP r e O iv S R Draft recommendationsCastle for electoral division boundaries PW dns Allot G in the County of Oxfordshire July 2011 Sheet 2 of 7 CROPREDY WARD KEY DISTRICT COUNCIL BOUNDARY This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of PROPOSED ELECTORAL DIVISION BOUNDARY Cemetery the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. WARD BOUNDARY Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England GD100049926 2011. PARISH BOUNDARY PARISH WARD BOUNDARY H W BANBURY HARDWICK ED PROPOSED ELECTORAL DIVISION NAME A A R R D W W BANBURY CALTHORPE WARD WARD NAME I C I C K K BANBURY CP PARISH NAME R Scale : 1cm = 0.08000 km H O WROXTON AND HOOK NORTON ED I A L L BANBURY RUSCOTE PARISH WARD D PARISH WARD NAME (14) Grid Interval 1km HANWELL CP COINCIDENT BOUNDARIES ARE SHOWN AS THIN COLOURED LINES Hardwick Business SUPERIMPOSED OVER WIDER ONES. Park NORAL WAY DUKES MEADOW DRIVE Playing Field L A P S L al E an d C Y xfor O D R I V E Nature Reserve D GARDENS WAY A WINTER O R M A H T U O l S a Lake Golf Course n a C Hanwell Fields d R r iver Community School o C f he x rwe O ll Lake BANBURY HARDWICK WARD S D BANBURY HARDWICK N Grimsbury
    [Show full text]
  • Oxfordshire County Council Election Results 1973-2009
    Oxfordshire County Council Election Results 1973-2009 Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher The Elections Centre Plymouth University The information contained in this report has been obtained from a number of sources. Election results from the immediate post-reorganisation period were painstakingly collected by Alan Willis largely, although not exclusively, from local newspaper reports. From the mid- 1980s onwards the results have been obtained from each local authority by the Elections Centre. The data are stored in a database designed by Lawrence Ware and maintained by Brian Cheal and others at Plymouth University. Despite our best efforts some information remains elusive whilst we accept that some errors are likely to remain. Notice of any mistakes should be sent to [email protected]. The results sequence can be kept up to date by purchasing copies of the annual Local Elections Handbook, details of which can be obtained by contacting the email address above. Front cover: the graph shows the distribution of percentage vote shares over the period covered by the results. The lines reflect the colours traditionally used by the three main parties. The grey line is the share obtained by Independent candidates while the purple line groups together the vote shares for all other parties. Rear cover: the top graph shows the percentage share of council seats for the main parties as well as those won by Independents and other parties. The lines take account of any by- election changes (but not those resulting from elected councillors switching party allegiance) as well as the transfers of seats during the main round of local election.
    [Show full text]
  • Banbury Health and Wellbeing Profile Oxfordshire JSNA 2019
    Banbury Community profile of Health and Wellbeing evidence November 2019 Banbury Health and Wellbeing Profile Oxfordshire JSNA 2019 CONTENTS 1 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 3 2 Geographical area ............................................................................................................... 6 3 Population profile ...............................................................................................................10 3.1 Population by age ........................................................................................................10 3.2 Ethnicity .......................................................................................................................11 4 People living in Communal Establishments .......................................................................13 5 Deprivation and Children in poverty ...................................................................................14 6 Health and wellbeing ..........................................................................................................17 6.1 Health profiles for Banbury ..........................................................................................17 6.2 Provision of care ..........................................................................................................24 6.3 Health conditions .........................................................................................................25
    [Show full text]
  • Where Was Banbury Cross?
    Where was Banbury Cross? By P. D. A. HARVEY HERE is nothing for which Banbury is more famous than for its Cross, and it is strange that it should still be possible to question the conclusions ofT any of the town's historians as to where this Cross stood. But between them there is agreement only that the town's principal cross or crosses had been destroyed by its inhabitants' puritan zeal in the early 17th century, so that Richard Corbet, writing between 1618 and 1621, saw only their bases , like old stumps of Trees'.' By the time historians tried to identify the site of the cross commemorated in one famous and several lesser nursery rbymes' all traces had vanished, so that written records formed the only evidence. The first to attempt the task was Alfred Beesley, whose History of Banbury was completed in I 84l.J He placed 'the principal Cross at Banbury ' unequivocally in the Horse Fair, but added that there were other crosses within the borough and mentions references to the 'Highe Crosse', the , Market Cross " the' Bread Cross ' and' the White Cross without Sugarford Bar'. In a footnote he identified the 17th-century Breadcross Street with the western part of High Street and suggested that the Bread Cross stood near its west end, concluding' It is quite possible that this was the same with the .. Banbury Cross" first mentioned'.. One result of Beesley'S argument was the location of the present cross, built in the Horse Fair in 1859.5 Another was an incident related by George Herbert in bis reminis­ cences of Banbury: when trees were being planted in the Horse Fair in 1885 the street's oldest inhabitant asked to be allowed to plant the one at the corner (presumably of Horse Fair and High Street), explaining 'I have always thought that was where the original Cross stood ' .6 A grant from the Univenity of Southampton towards the publication of thU paper is gratefully acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • Oxfordshire Record Office NM4 BANBURY METHODIST CIRCUIT 1 These Records Relate to the Wesleyan, Primitive and United Methodist C
    Oxfordshire Record Office NM4 BANBURY METHODIST CIRCUIT These records relate to the Wesleyan, Primitive and 1791-2006 United Methodist Circuits covering North Oxfordshire and parts of Warwickshire and Northamptonshire. The records include registers of baptisms and marriages, minute books, Sunday School admission and attendance registers, account books, title deeds, financial and publicity papers, and documents re sale of chapels. The catalogue is arranged in thefollowing sections: NM4/A: Banbury Wesleyan Circuit NM4/B: Banbury Primitive Circuit NM4/C: Banbury United Circuit (Post-1932) NM4/1: Adderbury Chapel NM4/2: Banbury Wesleyan Chapel NM4/2A: Banbury Wesleyan Day Schools NM4/3: Banbury Primitive Chapel NM4/4: Bloxham Chapel NM4/5: Lower Boddington Chapel NM4/6: Great Bourton Chapel NM4/7: Little Bourton Chapel NM4/8: Chipping Warden Chapel NM4/9: Claydon Chapel NM4/10: Cropredy Chapel NM4/11: Epwell Chapel NM4/12: Eydon Chapel NM4/13: Farthinghoe Chapel NM4/14: Grimsbury Chapel NM4/15: Hanwell Chapel NM4/16: Horley Chapel NM4/17: Hornton Chapel NM4/18: Kings Sutton Chapel NM4/19: Middleton Cheney Chapel NM4/20: Mollington Chapel NM4/21: Shenington Chapel NM4/22: Shotteswell Chapel NM4/23: Shutford Chapel NM4/24: Sulgrave Chapel NM4/25: Tadmarton Chapel NM4/26: Wardington Chapel NM4/27: Warmington Chapel NM4/28: Wroxton Chapel They were deposited in five stages: in August 1977 (accession 1444), March 1984 (accession 2245), July 1994 (accession 3846), December 1997(accession 4309) and February 1998 (accession 4323). 1 Oxfordshire Record Office NM4 BANBURY METHODIST CIRCUIT Further records were deposited as Acc 4555 in August 1999, Acc 4561 in August 1999, Acc 4880 in July 2001, Acc 4923 in November 2001, Acc 5122 in April 2003 and Acc 5916 in December 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • 1861, but That Number Emphasises the Scale and Significance of the Migration of More Than a Hundred Workers in the Other Direction
    1861, but that number emphasises the scale and significance of the migration of more than a hundred workers in the other direction. The census of 1851 reveals the previous homes of some of the more recent migrants to Coventry. Two weavers from Shutford, probably brothers, had moved during the 1850s to houses in the same part of Luckhurst Lane, Foleshill. Thomas Griffin's wife and two-year-old daughter were born at Foleshill, but the couple had apparently returned to Shutford for the birth of a child who was seven months old in April 1861. Henry Griffin and his wife similarly moved from Shutford after their youngest child was born in 1851. Henry Randle, from Bloxham, spent census night in 1851 in the village with his widowed father, a farm labourer, but he and his Bloxham-born wife probably moved to Stoke between 1843 and 1855 since their 26-year-old daughter, by 1861 a silk weaver, was a native of Bloxham, but her brothers, the eldest of whom was 18, had all been born at Stoke. William Jackman, not then married, was living alone in Adderbury in 1851, one of many plush makers of that name in the parish. Another, the James Jackman living in the House in the Hollow on Foleshill Road in 1861, was probably the widower living a few doors from George Herbert in High Street, Banbury, ten years earlier. William Hitchman, of Freeth Street, Coventry, had been living in Calthorpe Street in 1851 when his place of birth was then recorded as King's Sutton, although the Coventry enumerator recorded it as Adderbury.
    [Show full text]
  • FAST Swim Offer and Outline
    Discount offers reduced membership Families Active, Sporting Together An exciting new family programme is making it easier for families to enjoy sports and leisure together. Called FAST, the programme is aimed at families in the Neithrop, Ruscote, Hardwick and Grimsbury wards of Banbury. The programme will also have referral routes through Sanctuary Housing, GPs and OCC Family unit. FAST is being delivered by partnership including Cherwell District Council, Centre For Sustainable Healthcare, Sanctuary Housing and Oxfordshire County Council and is being funded by a grant from Sport England. tastersessions The offer includes: a FREE 12-week after school programme for families locally-based FAST activity sessions FAST family discounted membership and offers for families at Woodgreen and Spiceball leisure centres taster sessions and reduced membership fees at local sports clubs resource packs and equipment to help families continue their favourite activities in their own time And much more! For more information please visit www.cherwell.gov.uk/info/3/leisure-and-culture or contact [email protected] Programme is available for Neithrop, Ruscote, Hardwick and Grimsbury wards – Check website for details Families Active, Sporting Together An exciting new family programme is making it easier for families to enjoy sports and leisure together. Woodgreen summer swim save offer for families The programme is aimed at families in the Neithrop, Ruscote, £10 Hardwick and Grimsbury wards of Banbury. To see if you are eligible
    [Show full text]
  • North Cherwell
    North Cherwell CTA (Conservation Target Area) Description: Following the River Cherwell valley, the North Cherwell CTA benefits from a concentration of Floodplain Grazing Marsh and Lowland Meadow priority habitats and is important for notable species, especially breeding Curlew and a good range of other birds and other wildlife typical of these habitats. Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland, River, Pond, Reedbed and Hedgerow habitats are also represented. Notable hydrological features include a relatively natural stretch of the River Cherwell below Williamscot, as well as the recently constructed Banbury Flood Relief Scheme (with associated Borrow Pit) and the Oxford Canal. The riparian corridor provided by the River Cherwell provides all important connectivity between the priority habitats north and south of Banbury. The CTA includes one SSSI (Neithrop Fields Cutting). Joint Character Area: NCA 95: Northamptonshire Uplands Landscape Types: River Meadowlands Geology: Bedrock is Charmouth Mudstone Formation (183-199 million years ago in the Jurassic period), overlain with alluvium across the floodplain. Valley sides are Dyrrham Formation – siltstone and mudstone interbedded. Topography: Lowland river valley set in gently rolling countryside. Area of CTA: 692 ha Biodiversity: • Breeding Curlew are of high conservation importance as part of the Upper Thames river valleys population of about 50 pairs - which is one of the three largest surviving lowland populations in England. • Willow Tit have persisted in Grimsbury Woodland, one of the few remaining Oxfordshire sites. • Barn Owl, Skylark, Tree Sparrow, Reed Bunting and Yellow Wagtail breed, mostly within in the northern section. • Grimsbury Reservoir attracts a wide variety of birds over the year, including rare migrants, with 127 species recorded in 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Oxfordshire. Banbury
    DIRECTORY.] OXFORDSHIRE. BANBURY. 25 Warwick Road sub-Office.-.A. W. .Askew, sub-post­ Councillors. master.-Open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. week days §William Denchfield tWilliam Lake only. Letters dispatched at 8.30 a.m. 12.20 & 2, 3, §Edward Humphrey Durran tWilliam Palmar 5.30, 6.30 & 7·45 p.m §Percy Spencer Edmunds tWilliam Lampet Whitehorn Pillar & Wall Letter Boxes Cleared §Alfred Benjamin :Field tH ubert Bartlett §William George 1\Ianwaring tJoseph John Chard Bridge Street piHar box, 5.15 & 8.30 a.m.; 12.20, 2, 3, §Henry Richard Webb tWilliam Robert Cooper 5·45, 6.30 .& 7· 45 p.m. ; sundays, 5.15 p.m. ; G. W. tWilliam James Bloxham !Lewis Wycherley Stone Railway Station wall box, 5· 15 & 8.30 a. m. ; 12:2o, t Arthur Fairfax tWilliam Tom Wakelin 2, 3, 5·45, 6.30 & 7·45 p.m. Grimsbury wall box, tJohn Hyde !John Wilks 5.15 & 8.30 a.m.; 12.20, 2, 3, 5·35, 6.30 & 7·45 p.m.; sundays, 5.15 p.m. Market Place pillar- box, 5.50 Marked thus § retire in 1895· Marked thus t retire in 1896. & 8.30 a.m.; 12.20, 2, 3, 5·45• 6.30 & 7·45 p.m. Broughton Terrace pillar box, s.xs & 8.30 a.m.; Marked thus + retire in 1897. 12.20, 2, 3, 6, 6.30 & 7·45 p.m. Neithrop wall box, Marked thus * retire in 1898. 5.15 & 8.30 a.m.; 12.20, 2, 5·45, 6.30 & 7·45 E'.ective Auditors, Henry Page & George Watson p.m.; sundays, 5.15 p.m.
    [Show full text]