We would prioritise Scenario 2 - Main Service Centre Focus (Witney, Carterton and Chipping Norton). This makes the most sense in terms of social, economic and environmental sustainability.
There are high levels of employment in West Oxfordshire, so there seems to be tension between achieving the ‘high population growth’ referred to in the document and that growth being sustainable. Without housing data, it is difficult to examine the basis for the high levels of development being proposed.
Scenario 2 - Main Service Centre Focus (Witney, Carterton and Chipping Norton)
From "The Future Pattern of Development"
Go to the project
Scenario 2 would involve focusing the vast majority of future development (beyond existing commitments) more specifically at the three main service centres of Witney, Carterton and Chipping Norton.
These towns offer a broad range of services and facilities, good public transport accessibility and provide a mix of job opportunities. Two of them (Witney and Carterton) also lie outside the Cotswolds National Landscape where the scale and extent of development is expected to be limited.
Under this scenario, proportionately less development (beyond existing commitments) would then take place at the rural service centres and villages and development elsewhere would continue to be restricted to that which requires a rural location.
Some broad commentary on this potential approach is provided below.
- The primary focus on the 3 main towns was well supported when the last local plan was prepared;
- The three main service centres offer the broadest range of services and facilities in the District and are thus potentially well placed to accommodate further growth;
- They also provide a good range of opportunities for the re-use of previously developed (brownfield land) in line with national policy;
- Witney and Carterton lie outside the Cotswolds National Landscape where the scale and extent of development is expected to be limited;
- Witney and Carterton have already absorbed a significant amount of growth in recent years;
Proportionately less development taking place in the smaller settlements would limit the opportunity to provide new homes in those locations including affordable housing.
Official updates
Last update: 21 December 2023
Posted on 21 December 2023
Main service centres, Scenario 3: Witney and Scenario 4: Carterton. These risk ignoring the
needs of smaller towns and settlements for some, albeit limited, development.
Posted on 21 December 2023
In principle, the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL) Board (‘the Board’) supports a scenario that
both:
(i) targets development in those settlements that have the broadest range of services and
facilities, good public transport access and good job opportunities (for the reasons
outlined in our comments on Scenario 1); and
(ii) would put less development pressure on settlements within the CNL (apart from
Chipping Norton), particularly those higher up the settlement hierarchy, such as Burford
and Charlbury.
Putting less development pressure on settlements within the CNL would help to ensure compliance
with the national policy requirement to limit the scale and extent of development in AONBs.
The downside is that this scenario would put proportionately more development pressure on
Chipping Norton than Scenario 1, which already suffers from air quality issues relating to traffic. To
help limit the scale and extent of development in Chipping Norton, the majority of development, in
Scenario 2, should be at Witney and Carterton.
It is worth noting that the Board regards the CNL as a living and working landscape. We consider that
maintaining vibrant and thriving local communities, with a good range of services and facilities, is
essential to the long-term future of the CNL. As such, we recognise that some level of development
may be appropriate within the CNL, particularly, in the context of West Oxfordshire, at the rural
service centres of Burford and Charlbury (albeit with less development than would be the case if
these settlements weren’t in the CNL).
Posted on 21 December 2023
Comments(48)
Commenting is not possible because this project is currently not active.
Most recent comments have loaded.
Profile of Steven Jenkins
Posted by:Steven Jenkins
3 years ago
Supported with caveat, however, this option seems confused. On the one hand it notes that Witney and Carterton can absorb more growth as they are outside the Cotswolds, yet then states they have already had significant growth. Furthermore, Chipping Norton is excluded due to it being in the Cotswolds, so it seems that it is no longer an option for further significant growth. Witney is best placed to grow further if the infrastructure including trunk road improvements and public transport are delivered ahead of new homes.
Profile of Sarah Veasey
Posted by:Sarah Veasey
3 years ago
As I previously mentioned under Scenario 5 , much of the market for new housing is younger buyers (if they can afford it) and as elsewhere in the world, there is a preference young people to locate themselves in the major hubs which have more facilities, more job opportunities etc rather than the small villages which have very little to offer. It makes sense for the bulk of the new housing therefore to be centred around the hubs rather than the small villages.
Much of the local infrastructure is also already available in these places rather than out in the villages and therefore connections to new houses are easier and cheaper and there is less dependence on cars hence reducing traffic/pollution.
In some of the villages such as North Leigh, the infrastructure such as Thames Water's sewers, clean water supply and sewage treatment facilities are so inadequate that they cannot support the existing housing supply, let alone new build housing. If Thames Water are going to make huge new investments in the system then it makes more sense for this to be in the centres where it can support a much greater level of new housing, rather than out in the villages, where there is a huge cost to renovate an ailing Victorian linear sewer system that at the end of that it might only support an additional 200 or 300 houses.
Profile of Pamela Armstrong
Posted by:Pamela Armstrong
3 years ago
There is a general problem that is not being addressed: the eco qualities of the new houses, or any other structures. It should be statutory that new builds have ground-sourced heat pumps and solar panels.
Profile of Fiona Mackinlay
Posted by:Fiona Mackinlay
3 years ago
Witney has probably had its fair share of development and it seems unfair to do a " Bicester" on it. Witney still holds the character of a market town, it does not deserve to become a "New Town". Chipping Norton could grow, but it already is and the challenge remains that it lies in the heart of the Cotswold National Landscape with few links to rail hubs.
Profile of Kevin Green
Posted by:Kevin Green
3 years ago
Let's extend the Cotswold National Landscape to include Witney to help preserve what is left of the town's local character
Profile of Pamela Armstrong
Posted by:Pamela Armstrong
3 years ago
@Kevin Green I agree wholeheartedly. Is there something suspicious about Witney not being included? It is the essence of 'Cotswold'
Profile of Sarah Watkins
Posted by:Sarah Watkins
3 years ago
Bellway Homes Limited support this scenario as it will focus growth on settlements with both the highest levels of housing need and the highest level of existing service provision and public transport accessibility. This includes the Main Service Centre of Carterton.
Profile of John Corlett
Posted by:John Corlett
3 years ago
The 'rural service centre' concept is dangerous ... Burford, Charlbury, Bampton and Long Hanborough are very different places. For example, that Long Hanborough has a small railway station at one end of a very long ribbon development does not make it a place suitable for the many hundreds of extra houses that have been built in the past few years, without any additional infrastructure (especially sewage!) to support them, or for the 800 more that the Blenheim Estate would now like to add.
Profile of Peter Rance
Posted by:Peter Rance
3 years ago
Peter Rance. At last common sense, but only if the developers are committed legally to providing the necessary infrastructure, inc sewerage (Thames Water are proven to say yes to anything but know their system is overburdened as it is) and schools, public transport etc etc. listen to existing homeowners in estates off the A40 west of Witney who have been sold a pup as they have no such facilities yet!
So develop where the current towns already have the scale and amenities to support extension. Avoid isolated villages that lack that scale and will be scarred by unfettered development.
Profile of Leanne Mullen
Posted by:Leanne Mullen
3 years ago
I support this proposed scenario, as I am in favour of limiting development in villages and having the majority of new housing focused in Witney, Carterton and Chipping Norton. Any further significant levels of building in small villages would result in urban sprawl of housing until there is no green space remaining between neighbouring villages . While many villages may not reside in the AONB, upholding the rural character of these villages and ensuring that green space is maintained is vital to residents, tourists and to future generations. Moreover these towns listed as these service centres have brown field sites, schooling and more jobs and amenities, reducing the need for daily travel for new residents. Better transport links are needed to connect West Oxf and so the recent extension of the Oxford Tube route to include Witney and Carterton is a welcome step forwards and another reason for these town being identified as service centers.
Profile of MICHAEL BRENNAN
Posted by:MICHAEL BRENNAN
3 years ago
@Leanne Mullen Trouble is Carterton does not have the facilities to take more housing and doesn't have the spare land within its own boundaries.
Profile of Sally Abbey
Posted by:Sally Abbey
3 years ago
I do think that housing that is affordable for smaller communities should be considered on a case by case basis, so families are not forced to separate
Share
Posted by
Current status
Scenario