No more infill, no more development. CHANGE THE PLAN

The current draft of the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) supports the sub-division of properties and the sub-division of plots. This would result in the loss of character properties, blocks of flats being built, gardens being turned into car parks, overall densification and damage to the rural character of the village. If you don't want this, please respond to the consultation. 

Since the original NP survey was done, permission has been granted for 223 units at Thames Farm, Retirement Village, Wyevale, Mount Ida and elsewhere. Many of these units are smaller properties, ‘affordable’ homes and retirement apartments, thus the original objective of the NP to identify sites for 33 houses has already been met seven times over.

The plan must change!

Posted by: David Bartholomew | 12/07/2020 2:04 pm

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the NP stops, simply that we perhaps re-visit what is really important to the community having regard to the changed circumstances of the last 2 years and what options are genuinely available achievable and defensible In planning terms. Those should if agreed by the community then be taken forwards in reworking elements of the document to fit.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 14/07/2020 11:14 pm

The N p draft, doesn’t plan for any housing: all it says is no houses on green fields; only on brownfield; and if an existing house is removed, what if needs to be replaced with. We can never stop extensions etc and rebuilds, realistically. Just ask for objective 2 to be removed. Getting changes that you want made to this draft is the whole point of the consultation that ends today. I do not think David Bartholomew intended to get the draft to end here, just to be amended.

Posted by: Joanne Stone | 14/07/2020 7:53 pm

A Neighbourhood Plan needs to be flexible enough and robust enough to reflect changed circumstances but maintain its core objectives. The Plan now needs to restart from a point that includes everything that has happened until now and then taking all of that into account decide what else if anything needs to done. Since instigated, 233 new properties have been approved, planned affordable housing has been agreed and development now threatens the desired gap between the 2 villages. Stop! Think!

Posted by: Stephen Swiatek | 14/07/2020 7:17 pm

The Np just needs tinkering to remove the subdivsion issue. All other parts of the plan relate to the rural feel and that properties in each of the different parts of the Parish and villages need to fit in with the Character accessment, which basically says, they need to fit in with existing properities unless they are an improvement. Please support the plan. It has taken so long to get this far, I cannot see there will be any green fields left if we start from the beginning again.

Posted by: Joanne Stone | 14/07/2020 4:53 pm

I noted elsewhere on this site that the sales literature for Thames Farm occupants, tells them they will be 2 mins drive from Shiplake Station. The implications for parking in the Village Centre makes this just one issue which change (or will change) the priorities of Villagers. Why submit a Plan for anything based on outdated information and ignoring the current facts. Why cannot there be a total rethink of this Neighbourhood Plan based on reality?

Posted by: tim green | 14/07/2020 4:24 pm

I have made similar comments to those of Geoff Baldwin about the fitness for purpose of the current draft NP both in direct response to the request for feedback on the plan, and also on this forum. The latter seems to have disappeared, however the point remains that a proper consultation exercise is very much needed to give the plan writers a clear brief as to the general tone and direction that the new NP should take, as the request for views on direction received a tiny response.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 14/07/2020 4:12 pm

It seems clear that the current plan is not fit for purpose. It now appears that the 14 July 2020 deadline is imposed by the NP Committee, but what is SODC's deadline? The deadline must be delayed to allow proper consultation with residents, before the Parish Council submits a plan to SODC.

Posted by: Geoff Baldwin | 14/07/2020 4:05 pm

The current plan seems to ignore the original request for 33 houses and the fact that over 200 have been already approved. The village can't take any more with the loss of character properties, blocks of flats being built, gardens being turned into car parks, overall damage to the rural character of the village. we must change the plan, no more housing.

Posted by: Guy & Virginia van Zwanenberg | 14/07/2020 1:57 pm

The core objective of the original NP, was to keep the two villages ‘small’, but identify areas for sympathetic development. Sites were to be identified for 33 dwellings. While rewriting the plan, developers swooped on the villages, getting permission for 223! By not stipulating numbers, the SV 1-7 policies in the plan are inviting more in. The NP has dug a hole for itself. All the developers have to do now is to obey or get round the SV policies and get building. The plan has to be changed.

Posted by: Mick & Ann-Marie Reid | 14/07/2020 1:33 pm

Much has changed since the original NP survey was done. Permission has been granted for 223 units at Thames Farm, Retirement Village, Wyevale, Mount Ida and elsewhere. Many of these units are smaller properties, ‘affordable’ homes and retirement apartments, thus the original objective of the NP to identify sites for 33 houses has already been met seven times over. if neighbourhood plans are to have any meaning or weight to them the plan MUST change. Posted by Mike Kempton 12/07/2020 4:25 pm

Posted by: Michael Kempton | 12/07/2020 4:27 pm

Much has changed since the opinion of the village was sought. At the time of the survey, many found infill as an acceptable solution to meeting the commitment to accept further limited development. There are now 223 reasons to revise that decision and the NP needs to reflect these changing circumstances. Enough is enough and OUR neighbourhood plan needs revising. NO to sub-division and NO to in-fill.

Posted by: Richard Verrall | 12/07/2020 4:03 pm

When drafting the old plan the group developed a strategy to achieve core objectives for the plan. Then it was to prevent unwanted development on the green areas around the 2 villages AND allocating new smaller housing then a requirement. We did this by having policies that allowed for infill and subdivision but NO development on the main fields. That plan did not find favour with the PC but now some years on when the fields have gone is still being cut and pasted without a updated strategy.

Posted by: Peter Boros | 12/07/2020 3:58 pm

There have been so many developments since the plan was first mooted that it should be returned to residents for radical revision. Who dictates 14 July as the deadline? Delay it. Geoffrey Baldwin

Posted by: Geoff Baldwin | 12/07/2020 3:00 pm