Dispersing Housing Growth, and Scenario 6 - Village Clusters. We do not support either of these options. These proposals have the potential to result in sprawl and coalescence of villages, with settlements losing their distinctive identities. This would adversely affect the rural character of this part of West Oxfordshire, which is one of the district’s greatest assets. WODC's current Local Plan policy OS2 states that development should 'form a logical complement to the existing scale and developments', 'avoid coalescence and loss of identity', 'not have a harmful effect on the amenities of existing occupants', and 'protect and enhance the local landscape'. All these principles would be in danger of being breached in these two scenarios. These proposals would also lead to increased car use and associated carbon emissions.
Scenario 5 - Dispersed Growth
From "The Future Pattern of Development"
Go to the project
Scenario 5 would involve a more ‘dispersed’ approach to the future pattern of development so that instead of growth being steered mainly towards the District’s larger settlements, it would be more evenly distributed across West Oxfordshire.
Thus, whilst some additional growth would still take place at Witney, Carterton, Chipping Norton and the rural service centres, there would be a much stronger emphasis on small to medium-scale development taking place in the following villages:
- Alvescot
- Ascott under
- Wychwood
- Aston
- Bladon
- Brize Norton
- Cassington
- Chadlington
- Churchill
- Clanfield
- Combe
- Curbridge
- Ducklington
- Enstone
- Filkins & Broughton Poggs
- Finstock
- Freeland
- Fulbrook
- Great Rollright
- Hailey
- Kingham
- Langford
- Leafield
- Middle Barton
- Milton-under-Wychwood
- Minster Lovell (South of Burford Road)
- North Leigh
- Over Norton
- Shipton-under-Wychwood
- Standlake
- Stanton Harcourt
- Stonesfield
- Tackley
- Wootton
Under this scenario, we would anticipate that the more restrictive approach that currently applies to very small villages, hamlets and the open countryside would continue to apply.
Adopting a more ‘dispersed’ approach to growth such as this would mean that more small and medium-size sites would need to be identified either through the Local Plan or through Neighbourhood Plans.
National policy emphasises the contribution that such small and medium sites can make to meeting overall housing requirements.
Some broad commentary on this potential approach is provided below.
- Small and medium-size sites are generally able to deliver new homes more swiftly than larger strategic sites;
- Could provide a broader range of new housing and employment opportunities across the District;
- Could offer a greater degree of local influence and control (e.g. new sites brought forward through Neighbourhood Plans);
- A number of the villages listed fall within the Cotswolds National Landscape where the scale and extent of development is expected to be limited;
- A number of the villages listed are relatively poorly served by public transport leading to potentially higher car use and carbon emissions;
- Such an approach could ‘cumulatively’ place strain on local infrastructure capacity.
Official updates
Last update: 21 December 2023
Posted on 21 December 2023
Dispersal through villages. This would/could be the antithesis of a hierarchical approach,
overburdening villages with development, while ignoring the needs of main service centres. It would also
put a heavy emphasis on the use of private transport to access services.
Posted on 21 December 2023
The Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL) Board (‘the Board’) does not support Scenario 5 (Dispersed
Growth).
This is because it would result in more small and medium-scale sites being identified in CNL villages
than in any of the other scenarios. This would not be appropriate for several reasons.
Firstly, it is likely to conflict with national planning policy (paragraph 176 of the National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF), which specifies that the scale and extent of development in Areas of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), such as the CNL, should be limited.
Secondly, it is likely to adversely affect the natural beauty of the CNL to a greater degree (and over a
more widespread area) than some of the other scenarios.
Thirdly, it is likely to result in development that is disproportionate to the scale of the existing
settlements.41 Such development could potentially constitute ‘major development’, in the context of
paragraph 176 of the NPPF.
Fourthly, it is likely to result in a disproportionate amount of West Oxfordshire’s housing requirement
(including unmet needs arising in neighbouring local authorities) being accommodated within the
CNL, with 12 out of the 33 villages identified under Scenario 5 being located within the CNL (and two
more overlapping with the CNL boundary). This would not be appropriate given that national
planning policy guidance specifies that AONBs ‘are unlikely to be suitable areas for accommodating
unmet needs from adjoining (non-designated) areas.’
42
Lastly, it is likely to require increased levels of car use compared to the other scenarios, which would
not be compatible with objectives to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
Posted on 21 December 2023
Comments(71)
Commenting is not possible because this project is currently not active.
Most recent comments have loaded.
Profile of Jane Digby
Posted by:Jane Digby
3 years ago
cannot support. fraught with risks unless planning policy strong enough to put strict limits on development and insist on appropriate infrastructure and every village has an agreed local plan to work to.
However some villages could benefit from small developments of affordable housing to enable young people to stay local and elderly to downsize. Ensuring the viability of village schools, churches, pubs and shops requires smaller not larger homes and a limit on the number of air B&Bs and holiday lets.
Profile of Steven Jenkins
Posted by:Steven Jenkins
3 years ago
Scenario 5 – Dispersed Growth. Not supported.
By allocating what is likely to be hundreds of houses to each of the small villages that would be eligible would ruin their very nature, remove their individual character and harm the rural nature of much of West Oxfordshire. Although not all villages lie in the Cotswolds, they should all be afforded an element of protection from over- development. They have limited infrastructure and the risk of causing more harm than benefit seems high.
Profile of Sarah Veasey
Posted by:Sarah Veasey
3 years ago
Strong opposition to Scenario 5. Whilst the idea that each village might take proportionate amounts of planning sounds good, the reality is very different. There are a number of villages where location on the AONB or near the flood plain has meant that they have had very little new development, which means that other villages get more. The lack of a 5 year land supply has not helped matters with planning being allocated "by appeal" wherever it is possible, rather than on a sustainable basis.
At the 2041 WOLP meeting for Lowlands parish councils last week, housing growth of about 2% per annum was suggested as a suitable target for small villages, as anything in excess of this detracts from the rural character of our smaller villages which is the essence of the Oxfordshire Cotswolds. Our village, North Leigh, has received a 40% increase in housing in the last 6 years already which is wildly disproportionate !
Regardless of what targets are set for the smaller villages, without a 5 year land supply in place the plan means nothing and developers can try to push through planning anywhere on an opportunistic basis.
In addition, as much of the new housing is targetted at younger buyers, as elsewhere in the world, there is a preference for these homes to be located more 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.
Profile of Richard Catling
Posted by:Richard Catling
3 years ago
Nearly all of the villages listed are places where people live but not where they work and it is unlikely that this would radically change by increasing their populations. All it would do is add to the number of people who have to drive to their place of work, as well as for shopping, secondary education, medical needs and so on.
Profile of Joe Deane
Posted by:Joe Deane
3 years ago
There is no point building houses where there is no infrastructure. if people have to drive to get to work/doctor/school/shops it is not environmentally sustainable. there is not enough lithium in the world for everybody to have an electric car, and the roads are already knackered. you shouldn't build any houses without public transport in place, improved roads, sewage systems that don't dump in the river and new schools. our new residents have to drive over twice as far to the doctor as eynsham is 'full' and there is no public transport to witney.
you need to acknowledge there is a limit to how many houses you can build, even if you build on all farmland, landfills, brownfields there is a limit, the policy of not having a limit is utter insanity. its even more insane to think you can deal with the housing problem by building more poor quality expensive 'houses' when you could build many times the amount of houses on the same plot by building up or down, or in if there are hills. you need to appreciate that society is collapsing and new thinking is needed to deal wtih the expanding population, the same old Sh*t is not the answer.
Profile of Pamela Armstrong
Posted by:Pamela Armstrong
3 years ago
Towns should be towns, and villages should be villages. High-grade facilities should be concentrated in towns and not diluted by having to provide lesser quality amenities in villages. There is a set amount of money in the pot: spend it in the towns and let people choose the life-style they want
Profile of Pamela Armstrong
Posted by:Pamela Armstrong
3 years ago
It's ironic to list negatively 'potential higher car use and carbon emissions' while allowing developers to build eco poor homes. Ground-sourced heat pumps and solar panels ahould be a condition of building permission.
Profile of Fiona Mackinlay
Posted by:Fiona Mackinlay
3 years ago
Dispersing smaller, tiny developments in smaller settlements and towns could bring benefits, more affordable housing, more bus services and even more employment and access to local services. Historically villages grew to provide rural workers with homes and small businesses should be welcomed, many people are working from home and rather than becoming second home, retirement places they could become more vibrant with a diverse mix of people.
More open planning could even allow for smaller homes and businesses to be built in huge gardens. I lived in Castle Cary, Somerset when there was uproar when 2 vets wanted to make animal drugs in an old building in the town, they are now a key employer for residents. There is room for both, as long as the transport infrastructure enables this.
Profile of Charlie Rollet-Manus
Posted by:Charlie Rollet-Manus
3 years ago
A focus on dispersing development across smaller settlements as per Scenario 5 (Dispersed growth) and 6 (Village ‘clusters’) would promote a less sustainable pattern of development given the likely use of the private car to access employment and services. Additionally, it is unlikely that there is sufficient capacity at smaller settlements to meet the housing need in full. A large number of smaller sites would also result in less investment that can contribute to major infrastructure improvements across the District.
Profile of Sarah Watkins
Posted by:Sarah Watkins
3 years ago
This scenario is not supported as, by the Council’s own admission, this would result in growth in locations with limited access to services and public transport provision, increasing the reliance on the private car and negatively impact the local and strategic highway networks.
Share
Posted by
Current status
Scenario