DOCSLIB.ORG

Willowbrook Farm Hampton Gay 13/01868/F

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Willowbrook Farm Hampton Gay 13/01868/F Site Address: Willowbrook Farm 13/01868/F Hampton Gay Ward: Kirtlington District Councillor: Cllr Holland Case Officer: Shona King Recommendation: Refusal Applicant: Mr Ben Wilkins Application Description: Change of use to allow camping and caravan buses on site Committee Referral: Major Committee Date : 6 March 2014 1. Site Description and Proposed Development 1.1 The site is located to the north side of the road leading to Hampton Gay. It is an area of approximately 4 acres of what is currently agricultural land which forms part of a 30 acre farm. The site is adjacent to the River Cherwell and does not have a road frontage or a hard-surfaced access. It is within the Oxford Green Belt and is crossed by a public footpath. Part of the site is level and the remainder slopes up to towards the north. 1.2 Consent is sought for the change of use of the land to allow camping and caravan buses to be sited on the land. The applicant has stated that six converted buses (a mix of single and double deckers) will be placed on the site with a central bus for communal/staff use. Toilets will be compost toilets and there will be an anaerobic digester on the site. An existing building on the site will be used for storage and services such as laundry. They state that most of the site will remain open for guests for recreation purposes. 2. Application Publicity 2.1 The application has been advertised by way of neighbour letters, a site notice and press notice. The final date for comment was the 2nd December 2013. 9 letters have been received, including from the CPRE, the Oxfordshire Preservation Trust and the Oxford Green Belt Network. The following issues have been raised: • Inappropriate development within the Green Belt • Impact on the landscape • Visual intrusion • Out of character with the rural area • Impact on the Oxford Canal Conservation Area • Impact on the historic environment • Highway safety • Noise and disturbance • Future development if approved • Waste and rubbish • Drainage • Impact on wildlife • Impact on the local community 3. Consultations 3.1 Hampton Gay and Poyle Parish Council: Objects to the application and makes the following observations: The comments received from Parishioners has been entirely against this application and they have written individually to outline their objections. As a Parish Council we are unable to judge if this development is a breach of planning regulations but we are certainly not in favour of it. Cherwell District Council Consultees 3.2 Landscape Officer: This application contains a proposal to put buses converted into 'caravan' type accommodation and camping onto a site close to Hampton Gay. There are a number of issues with this application. Firstly there is no detail regarding the location of the elements contained in the proposal, no information on vehicular access to them, parking provision, the digester, the toilets, the electrical terminal relay. The access road off the single carriageway road to Hampton Gay does not exist at present. The site entrance is on a bend. The method of access for construction machinery and materials has not been explored nor that of getting buses onto the site. There is no landscape and visual assessment of the proposal. Had this been carried out it would have I believe shown that the majority of the site is unsuitable for development being very prominent in the landscape. Footpath 237/1crosses the middle of a field which has considerable prominence in the wider landscape. It is clearly visible from the road and as you approach the site along the footpath. There may some possibility of a limited amount of camping around the existing building on the lower levels of the site. This section of the site is concealed from the road by vegetation. It would be visible from the footpath as you walk down the hill but could be mitigated by appropriate planting. I would expect to see a detailed layout with appropriate landscaping. I don't think that converted buses are an appropriate element to introduce into this environment. They are a large urban feature whether single or double decker. I cannot support this application. 3.3 Ecologist: The application site is not covered by any ecological designations and no legally protected species would be affected by the proposals, therefore I have no comments to make on this application. 3.4 Environmental Protection Officer: We have no comments with regard to land contamination at this location apart from making the applicant aware that the responsibility for the safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer/ applicant. 3.5 Rights of Way Officer: Hampton Gay and Poyle Footpath No 1 crosses the application site but, as described in the PROW Statement, it will not be affected by the proposed development. However, if consent is granted, I recommend the following conditions relating to construction: 1. Temporary obstructions. No materials, plant, temporary structures or excavations of any kind should be deposited / undertaken on or adjacent to the Public Right of Way that may obstruct or dissuade the public from using the public right of way whilst development takes place. Reason: To ensure the public right of way remains available and convenient for public use. 2. Route alterations. No changes to the public right of way direction, width, surface, signing or structures shall be made without prior permission approved by the Oxfordshire County Council’s Countryside Access Team or necessary legal process. Reason: To ensure the public right of way remains available and convenient for public use. 3. Vehicle access (construction): No construction / demolition vehicle access may be taken along or across a public right of way without prior permission and appropriate safety/mitigation measures approved by the Countryside Access Team. Any damage to the surface of the public right of way caused by such use will be the responsibility of the applicants or their contractors to put right / make good to a standard required by the Countryside Access Team. Reason: To ensure the public right of way remains available and convenient for public use. I am satisfied that the applicant is aware of his duty to ensure that throughout the construction period no member of the public using Hampton Gay and Poyle FP 1 is endangered, or prevented from exercising their right of way. However, the applicant will have to correct the error in the PROW Statement as it is Footpath No 1 that crosses the application site, not No 12. Footpath No 12 runs west of Manor Farm. Oxfordshire County Council Consultees 3.6 Single Response: No comment to date. Other Consultees 3.7 Environment Agency: We have no objection to the application as submitted, subject to the inclusion of two conditions, detailed under the headings below, to any subsequent planning permission granted. Without the inclusion of these conditions we consider the development to pose an unacceptable risk to the Environment Condition 1 The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved ‘Sustainable Flood Risk Assessment’ (FRA) submitted as part of this application and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: • None of the converted buses are to be located within flood zones 2 and 3. • The development area will sign up to receiving flood warnings • The development will not be operational in the event of a flood. Reason • To ensure safe access and egress from and to the site. • To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants. Condition 2 No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision and management of an 8 metre wide buffer zone alongside the River Cherwell and other water courses on site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and any subsequent amendments shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The buffer zone scheme shall be free from built development including lighting, domestic gardens and formal landscaping; and could form a vital part of green infrastructure provision. The schemes shall include: • plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zone • details of any proposed planting scheme (for example, native species) • details demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during development and managed/maintained over the longer term including adequate financial provision and named body responsible for management plus production of detailed management plan Reason Development that encroaches on watercourses has a potentially severe impact on their ecological value. Land alongside watercourses is particularly valuable for wildlife and it is essential this is protected. This condition is supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 109 which recognises that the planning system should aim to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government's commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act which requires Local Authorities to have regard to nature conservation and article 10 of the Habitats Directive which stresses the importance of natural networks of linked corridors to allow movement of species between suitable habitats, and promote the expansion of biodiversity. Paragraph 118 of the NPPF also states that opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged. Advice to applicant Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Land Drainage Act 1991, prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of the River Cherwell, designated a ‘main river’.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • OCC Legal Statement Changes Post
    Changes to the Definitive Map & Statement of Public Rights of Way since 21st February 2006 Date Parish/Path Description Width Conditions & Remarks Number Limitations Abingdon Footpath 27 From North Avenue at Grid Reference SU 5029 9893 The Order confirmed Added by Modification Order 07/03/2006 100/27 between property numbers 13 and 15, 7.3.2006 provided a width confirmed 7.3.2006. south-south-westwards for approximately 133 metres 2.5 metres (min) along a strip of Common Land (Registration Number CL153), connecting with the western end of Mandeville Close at Grid Reference SU 5028 9882, to South Avenue at Grid Reference SU 5027 9880. Abingdon Footpath 28 From Colwell Drive at SU 4852 9717 leading generally 2m between SU 4852 1) Northern section added 19/02/2015 100/28 ENE for approx. 54m to SU 4857 9719, then NNW for 9717 and SU 4857 9719. by HA1980 S.38 Agreement approx. 51m and ESE to Willow Brook at SU 4856 9724.] 27.09.2001; came into effect 08.11.2004. 2) Western section added by HA1980 S.38 & 278 Agreement 15.08.2008; came into effect 23.12.2013. Abingdon Footpath 29 From the W end of Caldecott Chase at SU 49017 96473, 2 m. Added by HA1980 S.38 19/02/2015 100/29 leading N & W for approximately 22 m to Caldecott Road Agreement 05.06.2009; at SU 49007 96486. came into effect 06.01.2014. Abingdon Footpath 30 From Caldecott Chase at SU 49106 96470, leading N & E 2 m. Added by HA1980 S.38 19/02/2015 100/30 for approximately 26 m to SU 49109 96490.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Document for Planning Committee, 17/12/2015 16:00
    Committee: Planning Committee Date: Thursday 17 December 2015 Time: 4.00 pm Venue Bodicote House, Bodicote, Banbury, OX15 4AA Membership Councillor Colin Clarke (Chairman) Councillor Fred Blackwell (Vice-Chairman) Councillor Andrew Beere Councillor Michael Gibbard Councillor Chris Heath Councillor David Hughes Councillor Russell Hurle Councillor Matt Johnstone Councillor Mike Kerford-Byrnes Councillor James Macnamara Councillor Alastair Milne Home Councillor Richard Mould Councillor Nigel Randall Councillor G A Reynolds Councillor Barry Richards Councillor Lawrie Stratford Councillor Rose Stratford Councillor Sean Woodcock Substitutes Councillor Ken Atack Councillor Carmen Griffiths Councillor Timothy Hallchurch MBE Councillor D M Pickford Councillor James Porter Councillor Sandra Rhodes Councillor Nicholas Turner Councillor Bryn Williams Councillor Barry Wood AGENDA 1. Apologies for Absence and Notification of Substitute Members 2. Declarations of Interest Members are asked to declare any interest and the nature of that interest which they may have in any of the items under consideration at this meeting Cherwell District Council, Bodicote House, Bodicote, Banbury, Oxfordshire, OX15 4AA www.cherwell.gov.uk 3. Requests to Address the Meeting The Chairman to report on any requests to address the meeting. 4. Urgent Business The Chairman to advise whether they have agreed to any item of urgent business being admitted to the agenda. 5. Minutes (Pages 1 - 27) To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 26 November 2015. 6. Chairman's Announcements To receive communications from the Chairman. Planning Applications 7. Land East Of Evenlode Crescent And South Of Langford Lane Kidlington (Pages 30 - 62) 14/02067/OUT 8. Land At Lince Lane With Access Off Station Road, Enslow, Kidlington, OX5 3AX (Pages 63 - 90) 15/00822/F 9.
    [Show full text]
  • 70751 064 RAF Brize Norton ACP Consultation Report Draft A-BZN
    ERROR! NO TEXT OF SPECIFIED STYLE IN DOCUMENT. RAF Brize Norton Airspace Change Proposal Consultation Feedback Report Document Details Reference Description Document Title RAF Brize Norton Airspace Change Proposal Consultation Feedback Report Document Ref 70751 064 Issue Issue 1 Date 3rd October 2018 Issue Amendment Date Issue 1 3rd October 2018 RAF Brize Norton Airspace Change Proposal | Document Details ii 70751 064 | Issue 1 Executive Summary RAF Brize Norton (BZN) would like to extend thanks to all the organisations and individuals that took the time to participate and provide feedback to the Public Consultation held between 15th December 2017 and 5th April 2018. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is the Sponsor of a proposed change to the current arrangements and procedures in the immediate airspace surrounding the airport. As the airport operators, and operators of the current Class D Controlled Airspace (CAS), RAF Brize Norton is managing this process on behalf of the MOD. If approved, the proposed change will provide enhanced protection to aircraft on the critical stages of flight in departure and final approach, and will provide connectivity between the RAF Brize Norton Control Zone (CTR) and the UK Airways network. In addition, the Airspace Change will deliver new Instrument Flight Procedures (IFP) utilising Satellite Based Navigation which will futureproof the procedures used at the Station. As part of the Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) Guidance on the Application of the Airspace Change Process (Civil Aviation Publication (CAP) 725) [Reference 1], BZN is required to submit a case to the CAA to justify its proposed Airspace Change, and to undertake consultation with all relevant stakeholders.
    [Show full text]
  • Map Referred to in the Oxfordshire
    KEY Map referred to in the Oxfordshire (Electoral Changes) Order 2012 ELECTORAL DIVISION BOUNDARY WARD BOUNDARY Sheet 3 of 7 PARISH BOUNDARY PARISH WARD BOUNDARY BICESTER TOWN ED ELECTORAL DIVISION NAME BICESTER NORTH WARD WARD NAME This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of BICESTER CP PARISH NAME the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Scale : 1cm = 0.08000 km Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Grid Interval 1km BICESTER WEST PARISH WARD PARISH WARD NAME The Local Government Boundary Commission for England GD100049926 2012. COINCIDENT BOUNDARIES ARE SHOWN AS THIN COLOURED LINES SUPERIMPOSED OVER WIDER ONES. SHEET 3, MAP 3A Electoral division boundaries in Bicester 1 2 4 4 A CAVERSFIELD CP Airfield Gliding Centre M U L L E I M CAVERSFIELD WARD N ULB ER R RY O A D D R IV E D R M A E B B U C N C BICESTER NORTH ED R R K A O N N E H L E L S (5) B R I O L A L D D R Recreation Ground L U Southwold C E County Primary R N School E S A U N V BICESTER NORTH WARD D S E E K R I N L M U Bardwell School A M N I E D N G BUCKNELL CP E BICESTER NORTH D IV D IS R R H D LIME CRESCENT L E PARISH WARD IV A N E N LA E S R W U IN B P DM U IL C L K AV N EN E U E L E V Glory Farm PLOUGHLEY ED L Bure Park I B R R Primary and Nursery R Primary School D O O W A B E School D A L (13) N L I N I N V B G R U D D E B R R A R M R Y LAUNTON WARD IV R O Y D E R S A L V O The Cooper School D E E A N I A O U D R E F D LAUNTON
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX 1 CALCULATIONS REQUIRED by SECTIONS 32 to 36 of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1992 2020/21 CALCULATIONS at BAND D Tax PARISH 2020/21
    APPENDIX 1 CALCULATIONS REQUIRED BY SECTIONS 32 to 36 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1992 2020/21 CALCULATIONS AT BAND D Tax PARISH 2020/21 Base PRECEPT PARISH CHERWELL PARISH & COUNTY POLICE TOTAL 2020/21 2020/21 NEEDS NEEDS CHERWELL BAND D BAND D COUNCIL TAX £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Adderbury 1,348.7 49,880.00 36.98 133.50 170.48 1,527.44 216.28 1,914.20 Ambrosden 742.4 26,000.00 35.02 133.50 168.52 1,527.44 216.28 1,912.24 Ardley 262.2 13,052.00 49.78 133.50 183.28 1,527.44 216.28 1,927.00 Arncott 313.7 16,000.00 51.00 133.50 184.50 1,527.44 216.28 1,928.22 Banbury 15,799.3 1,929,411.00 122.12 133.50 255.62 1,527.44 216.28 1,999.34 Barford 266.3 9,750.00 36.61 133.50 170.11 1,527.44 216.28 1,913.83 Begbroke 359.1 28,181.50 78.48 133.50 211.98 1,527.44 216.28 1,955.70 Bicester 12,110.6 1,566,506.00 129.35 133.50 262.85 1,527.44 216.28 2,006.57 Blackthorn 207.1 11,829.00 57.12 133.50 190.62 1,527.44 216.28 1,934.34 Bletchingdon 376.8 22,000.00 58.39 133.50 191.89 1,527.44 216.28 1,935.61 Bloxham 1,557.1 £96,676.00 62.09 133.50 195.59 1,527.44 216.28 1,939.31 Bodicote 962.9 33,702.00 35.00 133.50 168.50 1,527.44 216.28 1,912.22 Bourton 340.3 12,200.00 35.85 133.50 169.35 1,527.44 216.28 1,913.07 Broughton 123.4 5,569.73 45.14 133.50 178.64 1,527.44 216.28 1,922.36 Bucknell 107.9 5,545.00 51.39 133.50 184.89 1,527.44 216.28 1,928.61 Caversfield 557.0 6,200.00 11.13 133.50 144.63 1,527.44 216.28 1,888.35 Charlton on Otmoor 203.7 9,300.00 45.66 133.50 179.16 1,527.44 216.28 1,922.88 Chesterton 449.8 28,000.00 62.25 133.50 195.75 1,527.44 216.28
    [Show full text]
  • Oxfordshire's Public Rights of Way Network – Assessment of Connectivity
    Appendix E Oxfordshire’s public rights of way network – assessment of connectivity As part of work to achieve the aims of the first Oxfordshire Rights of Way Improvement Plan, the public rights of way network was assessed using a Geographical Information System (GIS) by Exegesis Spatial Data Management Ltd. This has enabled the production of graphics and tables to show the relative connectivity at the settlement level and for each kilometre square across the county. The graphics are colour coded for ease of reference and simple comparison. Shades of green are areas better connected, whilst areas shaded red are more poorly served. Tables accompany the graphics and include the mean average connected network in each of the settlement size categories. The connectivity study was not able to take account of the other access resources that are available to the public, including access land, neighbouring counties’ rights of way networks, the minor and unsurfaced road network, cycletracks, permissive paths under stewardship agreements, nature reserves, Woodland Trust and National Trust accessible land, and areas made available under Inheritance Tax exemptions -so these should be considered as part of any detailed assessments. In addition, the public rights of way network has been assessed for its ‘disjunctions’ – points where public rights of way meet roads and other barriers – and where there is not a close connection on the opposite side of that road. Some of these match with suggestions submitted as part of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan production. The study is not definitive and there may be other disjointed routes that are not indicated or indicated in error.
    [Show full text]
  • 1265088 Cherwell DC Planning X56 (7Pt)
    CHERWELL DISTRICT COUNCIL TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACTS APPLICATIONS THAT REQUIRE STATUTORY ADVERTISEMENT 18/00182/F – Hampton GayAnd Poyle – Manor Farm Church Lane Hampton Poyle Erection of new garden room for Mr Harry Kerwood * 18/00183/LB – Hampton Gay And Poyle – Manor Farm Church Lane Hampton Poyle Erection of new garden room. for Mr Harry Kerwood 18/00323/F – Kirtlington – North Green Cottage North Green Kirtlington Amendments to application 17/00229/F – To alter the pitch of the roof, raising the ridge slightly matching the adjoining property on the east elevation, making it more in character with the majority of the properties within this conservation village. Altering the size of the window on the south elevation to match the adjoining bedroom window of our existing property. for Mrs Charlotte Gemma Queralt * 18/00321/F – Bicester – Land At Lakeview Drive And Oxford Road Bicester Installation of an external bin store for McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd *These are householder applications: any appeal in writing against refusal for planning permission will be sent to the Secretary of State, after which you won’t be able to comment further. Full details of these applications may be inspected during normal office hours at the Council Offices, or at http:// www.publicaccess.cherwell.gov.uk/online-applications/. Alternatively relevant applications have been sent to the respective Clerks to the Parish Councils or Meetings. Representation on applications should be sent within 21 days of the date of this publication to the Head of Public Protection and Development Management, Bodicote House, Bodicote, Banbury OX15 4AA. Any representations received cannot be treated as confidential in view of the provisions of the Local Government (Access to Information)Act, 1985.
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to Yarnton
    Welcome to Yarnton Foreword This booklet is supplied by Yarnton Parish Council as a general guide and a means of providing helpful information for newcomers to the village. Included in the directory section are the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the Parish Councillors and Clerk, Local Organisations and Voluntary Societies and details of amenities available. Although the village is physically divided into the old and the new, in spirit it is a well- integrated community; so, whilst the experience and knowledge of our longer-standing residents are much valued, any new arrival is always welcomed, and it is hoped that the information contained in this booklet will be of use in helping new parishioners to settle speedily and happily in the village, so please don‟t hesitate to contact any of the Councillors or organisations listed. Yarnton Parish Council Spring 2004 The armorial crest on the cover is that of the ALDERMAN WILLIAM FLETCHER of Oxford, one of Yarnton‟s outstanding benefactors. He built the Clerk‟s House on the corner of Church Lane. This was our first School House: that is why our modern Primary School is named after him. He endowed our Church with many valuable works of art and the chief parish charities were founded by the Alderman and other members of his family. The 2004 edition of Welcome to Yarnton was revised and updated by Yarnton WI with funding from Awards For All and was delivered to every household in the village by WI members as their Community Challenge project for 2003 –2004. This 2010 edition was also updated by the WI.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Residents
    Local resident submissions to the Cherwell District Council electoral review This PDF document contains submissions from local residents. Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document. Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Cherwell District Personal Details: Name: bill burles E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I would rather south newington was part of west oxford not cherwell. Quite frankly i dont see why we need a district council at all. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4343 18/12/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Cherwell District Personal Details: Name: Janet Doherty E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Member of the public Comment text: When I moved to Bicester 20 plus years Caversfield stood way out from Bicester. I moved to Caversfield over 15 years ago. I loved the fact there was no pub, no shop and that it was rural and unspoilt. But over the years we have been subjected to more and more planning applications all around us. All of them would have swallowed Caversfield up. It is bad enough the post office will not allow Caversfield to be included in our addresses. Now by just becoming North Bicester our identity will be totally lost and it is only a matter of time before Caversfield is lost to development and our village with it.
    [Show full text]
  • Cherwell District Council
    CHERWELL DISTRICT COUNCIL TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACTS APPLICATIONS THAT REQUIRE STATUTORY ADVERTISEMENT 16/02236/F - Hampton Gay And Poyle - Model Farm 19 Bletchingdon Road Hampton Poyle Demolition of Dutch barn and re-erection of the same building with associated hardstanding on alternative site at Model Farm for Mr J Brewer 16/01806/LB - Launton - Bicester Heritage Buckingham Road Bicester Physical works to buildings 79, 103, 108, 113, 123, 129, 130,131, 135 and 137 to enable restoration and conversion to commercial use. for Bicester Heritage 16/02269/HYBRID - Ardley With Fewcott - Land At Southern Bomb Stores Chilgrove Drive Upper Heyford OUTLINE planning permission for the demolition of the western part of the Southern Bomb Store and the associated structures and site clearance, with the subsequent construction of employment development (Use Classes B1a up to 2,650m2, B1b/c up to 10,550m2 and B8 up to 9,900m2 net) and associated buildings/ structures with the associated internal access roads, pedestrian/bridleway linkages, service areas and parking, utilities and infrastructure, landscaping and associated other works. FULL planning permission for the redevelopment of Chilgrove Drive and its junction with Camp Road (west and south) and the unnamed road (east) to the B430, the associated pedestrian/bridleway and other associated works for Upper Heyford LP 16/02126/LB - Launton - Yew Tree Farm Station Road Launton Alterations to listed building, new driveway and driveway fence for Ms Catherine Hall 16/01805/F - Launton - Bicester Heritage Buckingham Road Bicester Change of use of buildings from sui generis MOD use to various commercial uses as detailed in accompanying Planning Statement with associated physical works and demolition of buildings 101 and 104 and erection of replacement structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Oxfordshire Digital Infrastructure Strategy and Delivery Plan
    Oxfordshire Digital Infrastructure Strategy and Delivery Plan JANUARY 2020 – V11 Bower, Craig – COMMUNITIES | [email protected] Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 2 Vision ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Superfast Broadband ............................................................................................................................ 6 Commercial Operators in Oxfordshire ........................................................................................... 6 BT Plc - Openreach ...................................................................................................................... 6 Virgin Media .................................................................................................................................. 6 Gigaclear Plc ................................................................................................................................. 7 Airband .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Hyperoptic ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Open Fibre Networks Ltd (OFNL) ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • HWRC Consultation Summary
    Annex 2 Detailed Analysis of the consultation responses received: Below the responses received for each question asked are presented. Not all respondents chose to answer all questions. Where there was space for respondents to add a comment the key themes have been summarised. OCCs response to the main concerns and comments raised are detailed in the main body of the report. Question 1: What are your views on our proposals for reducing the overall number of HWRCs in Oxfordshire in order to meet a required 30 per cent reduction in the HWRC operating budget by 2017/18? Response Percentage of respondents Support 8% Oppose 91% Don‟t know 3% Key themes (2241 comments made) Those who supported the proposals did so in acknowledgement that savings needed to be made and they believed that OCC has investigated all of the options. A number of residents said that they would support the proposals as long as their local site was kept open. Some residents reminded OCC of the need to ensure that kerbside services would need to be maintained and that remaining sites would need to be able to cope with the increased and varied usage. Those who opposed the proposals felt that they would lead to an increase in fly-tipping and that the extra journey time was unacceptable; that this would be a disincentive to recycle and bad for the environment. They felt that the remaining sites would become overcrowded and difficult to use and that the population growth in their area was not being adequately catered for. Overall a number of respondents felt that the proposals would increase costs for the council.
    [Show full text]