Kirtlington Parish Council and Mid Cherwell Neighbourhood Forum
PARISH CONSULTATION MEETING “Future Housing for Kirtlington?”
Thursday 5th October 2023 at 6.30pm in the Village Hall
Background to the meeting
Kirtlington Parish Council proposes to hold a Parish Consultation meeting as Cherwell District Council (CDC) is in the process of reviewing its Local Plan to 2040 which includes indicative housing requirements for larger villages like Kirtlington. CDC is not specifying numbers by each larger village, but 500 overall are sought from the larger villages. The CDC Local Plan will be published for consultation very shortly.
The Mid-Cherwell Neighbourhood Plan Forum (MCNP) is also in the process of reviewing its Neighbourhood Plan to cover the same period to 2040. Kirtlington has been one of the 12 member parishes in the MCNP since 2015 and the Parish Council is participating in the MCNP’s review. Neighbourhood Plans were introduced by the Localism Act of 2011 to enable parishes to make locally-specific policies alongside their District Council’s Local Plans.
The meeting
The meeting on 5th October will include briefing on how the MCNP’s review is considering the potential for any housing in its larger villages. Specifically, the focus of the meeting will be on Kirtlington, and the primary purpose of the meeting is to present information about the assessment of possible sites for housing around the village for the purposes of the MCNP review. The presentation will include a map showing where all the possible sites are and details about how the sites are being assessed. It will be an opportunity for Kirtlington residents to say what they think about the future housing needs of the village, and about the sites under discussion.
There will be ample time for questions and discussion, and the meeting is timed to be before there are any outcomes from the MCNP’s review to ensure that the views expressed by Kirtlington’s parishioners can be taken into account. More details for the meeting will be published nearer the time. Look out for these on the village noticeboards, on the village website and on Facebook.
The meeting Agenda
Kirtlington Parish Council and Mid-Cherwell Neighbourhood Plan Forum
Notice of Parish Meeting issued 26th September 2023
Jean Conway, Chair, Kirtlington Parish Council
PUBLIC MEETING
Thursday October 5th 2023 at 6:30 pm Kirtlington Village Hall
FUTURE HOUSING FOR KIRTLINGTON?
AGENDA
1. Welcome and introductions
2. Background to this meeting
3. The assessment process
4. Questions / comments on the process?
5. Questions / comments on the assessment criteria?
6. Any other sites?
7. Questions / comments on individual sites?
8. Next steps
Email any comments to mcnpsites@gmail.com
Further background and Update, September 2023.
Mid Cherwell Neighbourhood Plan Housing Site Assessments in Kirtlington
This Update has been produced in advance of the Public Meeting on Thursday, October 5th at 6.30pm in Kirtlington Village Hall. It is intended to give those intending to come to the meeting an opportunity to consider the findings so far of the site assessment process. It should be read in conjunction with the Map, the List of Sites and the Assessment Criteria. For those unable to attend, please see the last paragraph.
- The Mid-Cherwell Neighbourhood Plan (MCNP), written and developed by local people, was officially adopted in 2019. It includes planning policies that support housing development in Steeple Aston, Fritwell and Kirtlington, but which also limit the extent of growth to about 5% of existing dwelling numbers in the period to 2031. In Kirtlington’s case, the growth figure was 17 dwellings. The MCNP is now under review by the MCNP Forum of 12 parishes, including Kirtlington, presenting the opportunity to improve existing policies and add new ones in response to climate change and environmental protection. It is also an opportunity to look again at local housing need and ways of meeting it.
- In January 2023 Cherwell District Council published a first version of its proposed Local Plan to 2040 (subsequently put on hold). Proposals in that draft Plan suggested that Steeple Aston and Kirtlington (the two “large villages” in the Mid-Cherwell Neighbourhood Plan area), might be expected to take 46 and 47 new houses respectively during the plan period. This would represent growth of the order of 11%.
- Following local elections and a change of political control, Cherwell District Council re-started their Local Plan process with the same policies as seen in January, but with some of the detail omitted. Their Local Plan to 2040 was finally issued for consultation on September 22nd 2023. The policy for rural areas remains as it was, with a proposal to distribute 500 new homes around the same 11 “large villages” as before, but now specific numbers per village have been withheld. There is renewed emphasis on the ability of neighbourhood plans in these areas to allocate housing sites, if they wish to do so.
- As part of the MCNP Review, and with the agreement of both parish councils, teams were established in both Steeple Aston and Kirtlington to identify and assess possible housing sites in each village. The Kirtlington team comprises Kay Chacksfield, Briony Enser, Christine Marsh and Helen MacBeth. A common process is being used for both villages on the eligibility of sites, the assessment criteria, the basis for scoring and the community consultation process. Contact with land owners/interests has also been undertaken.
- However, the process is still open to further ideas. Sites were not eligible for allocation if their site area was below a threshold size of 5 houses, or if no possible access appeared feasible. Such sites could however potentially be developed in future as unplanned “windfall sites” if the problems are overcome
- The 12 sites being assessed are shown on the accompanying map. Owners have indicated whether the sites are available for development now, at some future date, or not at all. For Kirtlington, there are six available sites (Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8) and six sites which are not available (Sites 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 & 12).
- The criteria attached are based on national standards and are as objective and factual as possible. Whilst it will not be practical at the meeting to go through all the criteria for each of the 12 sites, your observations are welcomed on the criteria themselves, and on how they apply to individual sites. Your comments at the meeting, or by email (see last paragraph), will supplement the views of the assessment team in arriving at final recommendations.
- Existing MCNP policies also require the sites for any new housing to be immediately adjacent to the settlement area. The MCNP objective is that the numbers should be informed by the preferred sites, and by community preferences, and not by a top-down approach. At this stage, we do not know if one or more sites, or indeed none at all, will be recommended.
- Any site or sites to be allocated will have a recommended maximum number of dwellings per site, and can require a particular mix, type, design etc., as well as community facilities if these are needed. Views expressed on the mix and type of housing are welcome, e.g., whether these are for housing for older people, like bungalows, or starter homes for younger people or larger family homes.
- No decisions regarding preferred sites have yet been taken: community views are an important part of the process. Recommendations will go to the October meetings of both parish councils, then to the MCNP Forum. An independent evaluation of all the sites from the MCNP Forum’s consultants will also be taken into account.
- In November, the draft MCNP Review, incorporating any recommendations on housing allocation in the two villages, will go out to full public consultation. In Spring 2024 a further draft of the MCNP’s Review will be formally submitted to Cherwell District Council, who will consult once again. An Examiner will then be appointed to decide whether the Plan can proceed to referendum, planned for early Summer 2024. Success at referendum brings the revised Plan immediately into force.
- It may also be possible to achieve a desirable outcome for the village, with landowner support, by establishing a community-led housing process (e.g., with a Community Land Trust). Discussions with experts in this field are also underway. There are many hurdles to overcome before any such schemes could begin on the ground.
Thank you for reading this update. We hope you will be able to attend the meeting to hear what others have to say, and to raise your own questions or comments. If you are not able to attend, please email any questions or comments to mcnpsites@gmail.com either before or after the meeting, and we will do our best to reply.
(Kirtlington Site Assessment Team)
Map of the 12 sites being assessed in Kirtlington
Issue |
Green |
Amber |
Red |
RATING |
|
1. Current Use |
Vacant |
Existing uses may need to be relocated |
Loss of important local asset |
|
|
2. Relationship with Settlement Boundary |
Site adjoins settlement boundary on more than one side |
Site adjoins settlement boundary on one side |
Site not contiguous with settlement boundary |
|
|
3. Topography |
Flat or gently sloping site |
Undulating site, though slope can be mitigated to accommodate development |
Severe slope that cannot be mitigated |
|
|
4. Greenfield or Previously Developed Land |
Previously developed land (brownfield) |
Mixture of brownfield & greenfield land |
Greenfield land |
|
|
5. Agricultural Land Classification |
Land classified as Grade 3b or below or N/A |
Land classified as Grade 3a (Best and Most Versatile) |
Land classified as Grade 1 or 2 (Best and Most Versatile) |
|
|
6. Landscape Character (sense of place) |
Site has indistinct character |
Site has moderate character, typical of its surroundings |
Site has strong positive character, with features worthy of conservation |
|
|
7. Relationship with existing pattern of built development |
Consistent with existing settlement pattern |
Some inconsistency with existing settlement pattern but can be mitigated |
Wholly inconsistent with existing settlement pattern |
|
|
8. Site Visibility |
Site visible from a small number of properties |
Land visible from a range of sources; could be mitigated through landscaping or planting |
Prominent visibility. Difficult to improve |
|
|
9. Likelihood of setting precedent of further adjacent development |
Little likelihood of this scenario arising |
Uncertain, but could be some likelihood of this scenario arising |
High likelihood |
|
|
10. Important Woodlands, Trees & Hedgerows |
None affected |
Mitigation measures required |
Site would harm or require removal of ancient tree or hedge (or TPO) |
|
|
11. Local Wildlife Designations (LWS or LNR) |
No impact on wildlife designations |
Small to medium impact but with potential to mitigate |
Statutorily protected site affected |
|
|
12. Proximity to habitats with potential for protected species (e.g. Ponds with GCN) |
No impact on habitats |
Small to medium impact but with potential to mitigate |
Statutorily protected species/habitats likely to be impacted |
|
|
13. Listed Building or important built assets and their setting. |
No harm to listed building |
Less than substantial harm |
Substantial harm |
|
|
14. Impact on the Conservation Area or its setting. |
No harm |
Less than substantial harm |
Substantial harm |
|
|
15. Ancient monuments or archaeological remains. |
No harm to an ancient monument or remains site |
Less than substantial harm to an ancient monument or remains site |
Substantial harm to an ancient monument or remains site |
|
|
16. Impact on Registered Park and Garden |
No harm or N/A |
Less than substantial harm |
Substantial harm |
|
|
17. Flood Zone Classification |
Site in Flood Zone 1 |
Site in Flood Zone 2 |
Site in Flood Zone 3 |
|
|
18. Any surface water flooding/drainage issues |
No drainage issues identified |
Need for mitigation (SuDS) |
Drainage concerns. |
|
|
19. Any known contamination issues |
No contamination issues |
Minor mitigation required |
Major mitigation required |
|
|
20. Any existing public rights of ways/bridle paths. |
No impact on public right of way |
Detrimental to public right of way |
Re-routing required or would cause significant harm |
|
|
21. Safe pedestrian access to and from the site. |
Existing footpath |
No footpath but can be created |
No potential for footpath |
|
|
22. Safe vehicular traffic to and from the site. |
Appropriate access can be easily provided |
Appropriate access can only be provided with significant improvement |
Appropriate access cannot be provided |
|
|
23. Impact on existing vehicular traffic. |
Impact on village centre minimal |
Medium scale impact on village centre |
Major impact on village centre |
|
|
24. Safe access to a bus stop with current service |
A distance of 250m or less |
A distance of 251-500m |
A distance of greater than 501m |
|
|
25. Distance to village hall |
A distance of 250m or less |
A distance of 251-500m |
A distance of greater than 501m |
|
|
26. Distance to equipped area of play (LAP, LEAP, NEAP) |
A distance of 250m or less |
A distance of 251-500m |
A distance of greater than 501m |
|
|
27. Distance to amenity green space (LGS)/ outdoor sports facility |
A distance of 250m or less |
A distance of 251-500m |
A distance of greater than 501m |
|
|
28. Distance to Primary School |
A distance of 250m or less |
A distance of 251-500m |
A distance of greater than 501m |
|
|
29. Distance to village shop |
A distance of 250m or less |
A distance of 251-500m |
A distance of greater 501m |
|
|
30. Overhead electricity transmission network. |
Site unaffected |
Re-siting may be necessary |
Re-siting may not be possible |
|
|
31. Noise impact on site. |
No noise issues; peaceful site |
Mitigation may be necessary |
Noise issues will be an ongoing concern |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SCORING Number of Green scores = (add) x 5 = (total) Number of Amber Scores = (add) x 3 = (total) Number of Red Scores = (add) x 1= (total)
|
Final score Maximum score available: 31 x 5 = 155 |
|