Village clusters. This is a very bad idea which threatens to destroy the unique characters of
individual settlements and encourage linear sprawl between them.
Scenario 6 - Village ‘Clusters’
From "The Future Pattern of Development"
Go to the project
Like Scenario 5, Scenario 6 is based on a dispersed approach to the future pattern of growth but, instead of villages being treated separately, they would be considered collectively in small groups or ‘clusters’ based on the services and facilities they are able to cumulatively offer.
Each village ‘cluster’ would then be the focus for an appropriate and proportionate amount of growth.
The logic of this approach is rooted in the NPPF which emphasises that planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services and that where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby.
This could apply to clusters of existing larger villages for example:
- Long Hanborough and Freeland;
- The Wychwoods (Ascott under Wychwood, Milton under Wychwood and Shipton under Wychwood);
- Bampton and Aston
But it could also potentially apply to some smaller villages where the current Local Plan adopts a more restrictive approach to growth, particularly where these are close to other larger villages that offer a broader range of services and facilities.
Hypothetical examples of such an approach might include:
- Stanton Harcourt and Sutton;
- Alvescot and Black Bourton;
- Standlake and Brighthampton;
- North Leigh and New Yatt;
- Church Hanborough, Long Hanborough and Freeland
Some broad commentary on this potential approach is provided below.
- It would consider the ‘collective’ opportunities and advantages presented by settlements rather than treating each in isolation;
- Likely to bring forward some development opportunities in locations where historically this has not been possible, thus potentially helping them to thrive;
- Potential to increase community cohesion and inclusivity;
- However, could potentially lead to a perception of loss of identity between different settlements;
- Many smaller settlements are poorly served by public transport with limited opportunities for walking and cycling.
Official updates
Last update: 21 December 2023
Posted on 21 December 2023
The Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL) Board (‘the Board’) recognises that, in principle, Scenario 6
(Village Clusters) has some potential benefits.
Potential benefits include helping to maintain, or secure, services and facilities within these clusters
and helping to reduce reliance on private car use (or, at least, reduce the distance that has to be
travelled to access these services and facilities).
Following the ’20-minute neighbourhood’ principle, this would be most appropriate for settlements
that are within, say, a 10-minute bike ride (i.e., approximately 2.5km) of each other. The distance
could potentially increase where there is provision of e-bike facilities within these communities.
Additional measures would need to be taken to support / encourage the use of cycling within these
village clusters. For example, potential options could include reducing speed limits (to, say, 20mph),
creating ‘quiet lanes’, re-prioritising traffic, etc.).
One example, within the CNL, where this approach is being considered is the strategy being
developed by VeloCity, on behalf of Blenheim Estate, to develop sustainable rural communities on
the Estate.
43 One of the key themes of this strategy is connectivity. Whilst many of the aspirations of
this strategy are admirable, particularly those relating to connectivity, it is not clear whether CNL
considerations have been adequately addressed. Within the context of the CNL, Scenario 6 (Village Clusters) would need to be carefully assessed to
ensure that it could be delivered in a way that is compatible with (and, ideally, positively contributes
to) the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the CNL.
Any potential village clusters within the CNL should not be a main focal point for accommodating
West Oxfordshire’s development needs. The main focus for new development should be in
settlements further up the settlement hierarchy (i.e., main service centres and rural service centres),
particularly those that lie outside the CNL.
Posted on 21 December 2023
1. This approach allows clearer thinking about what facilities and infrastructure are required as
smaller settlements expand
Posted on 21 December 2023
Comments(95)
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, unworkable. might look OK on a map but unrealistic fraught with problems, won't solve anything.
Need to use a hub and spokes model - work out where people want and need to get to and provide good integrated public transport networks - right time right place to make it possible, subsidised if necessary until take up improves takes time for people to change their habits and trust in public transport.
Profile of Steven Jenkins
Posted by:Steven Jenkins
3 years ago
Scenario 6 – Village “Clusters.” Not Supported.
This risks the very essence of the district - it's historic patchwork of smaller settlements interspersed with fields containing livestock and crops within a rolling Cotswold and/or Thames Clay landscape being lost forever. Coalesced with each other will cause significant loss of individual village identity. Moreover, to form towns without appropriate infrastructure as we have already started to experience in Long Hanborough will have a significantly harmful impact on the very rural nature of these settlements - 'death by a thousand cuts'. Once you add the development in plan already and the huge solar developments being proposed in the east of the district and you're left with a landscape disaster in an area that is within/adjacent to a World Heritage Site and an AONB.
Profile of Linda Shead
Posted by:Linda Shead
3 years ago
There are plenty of brownfield sites in West Oxfordshire that could and should be developed instead of allowing greedy landowners to sell off more green fields around our villages.
Profile of Sarah Veasey
Posted by:Sarah Veasey
3 years ago
I have clarified with WODC that the above suggestions do not imply that the above villages will coalesce, but rather that they should be viewed as "groupings" for the purposes of services and facilities.
However I strongly oppose this scenario, grouping together two or three small villages or hamlets with hardly any facilities, does not mean that en-masse the cluster will then have adequate facilities, grouped or not, residents will still need to venture out of the grouping for most of the amenities and services that they need eg medical care, supermarkets etc.
However viewing the villages as one grouping could easily lead to a slippery slope towards coalescence, it would be tempting for developers to eye up sites and fill in gaps between the villages as those new houses would benefit from whatever amenities the "cluster" could offer.
Each of the above villages has its own identity and character and this would be blurred if the villages were "clustered" in any way without benefitting the residents at all (as they are probably already using the amenities of adjacent villages already whatever new label is put on it).
Profile of Paul Gowers
Posted by:Paul Gowers
3 years ago
How about a thorough examination of public transport needs and provision of bus services needed to the village, a subsidised service.
Profile of Joe Deane
Posted by:Joe Deane
3 years ago
This does not work, you have already planned significant new development (more than the last century in 5 years) in stanton harcourt and sutton and there is less infrastructure then there ever has been. until recently we had hte highest untreated sewage discharge rate in the entire county and 25% more houses were approved (leading to 25% more sewage to be discharged without treatment). Despite all the developement we have no full time village shop or post office (which we had 20 years ago), no proper bus service (which we had until 2016) and have the pubs in the village have closed forever. There is also no space to expand the school and it has built over a good portion of its playing field simply to take overflow from neighbouring villages let alone space for new children in the village.
Infrastructure is inadequate for the current population, there should not be any building of houses without infrastructure being resolved first (and the local plan should reflect that) even basic things like sewage, water pressure and electric as we frequently lose both power and water pressure.
Moreover you need to be realistic about how many houses can be built on land, if you really need a lot of homes you need to stop building these pathetic poorly built post card houses with fake chimneys and postage stamp gardens and build to maximise space such as basements and lofts that are useable, or if you need lots of home build skyscrapers, you'll have to anyway when you run out of space if local and government policy is to build more forever.
Think about it - in the space of a 4 bed property you could build ten appartments, the main cost is the land so instead of 1 house for ~1million, you could be building ten homes for a fraction of the cost.
Profile of Pamela Armstrong
Posted by:Pamela Armstrong
3 years ago
Do the pub and shop in Stanton Harcourt represent the complete 'broader range of services' than what is offered in Sutton? Scneario 6 is highly fanciful and not supported by any evidence.
Profile of Nicola Coldstream
Posted by:Nicola Coldstream
3 years ago
5.53 Ascott-under-Wychwood is not a 'larger village'. It is a small, under resourced settlement physically separated from Milton and Shipton.
5.56 The terms 'collective opportunities' and 'cohesion and inclusivity' are unexplained and therefore effectively meaningless. Ascott-under-Wychwood is already thriving community, which is endanger of losing its identity as a Cotswold village. It has almost non-existent public transport inks, and its railway station barely functions.
Profile of Helen Wheaton
Posted by:Helen Wheaton
3 years ago
In a sense, all villages are part of a 'cluster' already. Aston residents have to travel to Bampton for the Doctors Surgery and further afield for dental services, supermarkets, vets etc.
By choosing to live in a village, you take on the need to travel to services not available and the limitations that are inherent. Only free or cheap public transport will alleviate the issue for those without their own cars.
If creating a term ie 'Clusters' allows development in between villages, all we will have is more people struggling with the existing facilities. More houses does not mean a better bus service or a safe footpath or school places.
The green spaces in between villages are what create its identity - once it's gone ...
New developments need to be completely self sufficient. Milton Keynes for instance has a school, shop, surgery, centre within each area. This ensures people without their own transport can still access the most important services. The 'future' plans should be for the future not a repeat of past mistakes.
Profile of Fiona Mackinlay
Posted by:Fiona Mackinlay
3 years ago
Wootton already shares some services with other villages. We benefit from the Middle Barton Community Bus and our children attend Tackley village school. We share a bus route with Stonesfield and our GP practice is in Woodstock. Middle Barton would like a social morning for the elderly and we could host this in our Village or Burditch Hall. As we are over a mile away from a bus stop with very few buses that stop, it will make sense to pool resources and services where we can. A car pool may be in demand with Oxford's LTN policy. We can also share our local economy, during covid our community shop became vital to more than just Wootton and our pub is popular. Many of us want to use local people to help with painting, chimney sweeping, dog grooming and so on. So in terms of sharing resources, village clusters could work and accommodate the development of ring fenced numbers of homes. It would depend on the village site but it would be below 20 homes.
Share
Posted by
Current status
Scenario