|
1
|
|
Perhaps it could
be explained what the implications would be for either
outcome?
|
|
2
|
|
Current
infrastructure cannot support existing Wallingford
population:
GP practice was forced to close to new patients
Bypass is already gridlocked between 8am and 9.30am was well as 4pm
to 6pm
|
|
3
|
|
I do not see any
advantage of moving the land into Wallingford parish.
|
|
4
|
|
It would seem to
legitimise site A as a chosen site for development which is clearly
not the case for the foreseeable future.
|
|
5
|
|
Urban sprawl must
be strongly resisted, primarily by designating and maintaining
green belts around towns. I can see no natural boundary north of
the bypass, but the expansion of Wallingford over Area A looks
likely. As a corollary, however, SODC should make it clear that no
urban development will be permitted beyond the new town
limit.
|
|
6
|
|
I endorse the
submission made by Brightwell-cum-Sotwell parish council in respect
of this review. I have read the council's letter and heard their
arguments against this proposal when they spoke at Wallingford Town
Council's planning meeting on 11 April.
Comment on criterion 'natural or man-made boundaries help to define
clearly one community from another'. The current boundary between
Wallingford and Brightwell-cum-Sotwell is adequate and generally
follows established field boundaries; it is widely recognised by
the communities of both Wallingford and Brightwell-cum-Sotwell and
causes no discernible detriment to either.
The land in question is entirely agricultural with no realistic
prospect of accommodating new residents within the next decade.
Oxfordshire County Council has designated minerals safeguarding for
this land. There are no 'local residents'.
Comment on the criterion 'the extent to which proposals reflect the
identities and interests of the affected community'. The land is
managed for agriculture, with well-established and used public
rights of way across it. Changing the boundary between Wallingford
and Brightwell-cum-Sotwell does not (in my opinion) reflect the
identities and interests of the farmer/land manager or people who
walk/run on the footpaths. I am not aware of any part of
Wallingford's community that could benefit from this proposed
change.
|
|
7
|
|
Please see
attached document from the Wallingford Neighbourhood Plan Steering
Group.
|
|
8
|
|
The residents will
be using schools, shops, dentists, doctors, etc. in Wallingford, so
should be part of Wallingford for practical purposes.
I would have liked this to have been extended to include
Shillingford Hill as part of Wallingford - we are totally
disconnected from Brightwell-cum-Sotwell, and it's ridiculous that
we are not part of Wallingford, for the reasons above.
|
|
9
|
|
The proposal is
wholly without merit, as cogently argued by both
Brightwell-cum-Sotwell parish council and by the Wallingford
Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group.
|
|
10
|
|
There is no need
for this proposal. It will weaken both parishes in terms of
unnecessary development threats and was not even discussed with
Brightwell Parish council or residents
|
|
11
|
|
The proposed new
boundary does not follow any legible or established field,
landscape, natural or footpath boundary that would clearly help to
define one community from another – the proposed new boundary
is in the middle of open fields. This would add considerable
confusion as to where the parish boundary is – being based
only on a historic and rejected planning consultation (regarding
which site was suitable for development around Wallingford as part
of the 2012 local plan review) and not on any identifiable
landscape or boundary features.
There is no requirement for any development to take place on the
land formally known as Site A until 2035 at the earliest, so there
would be no development that would result in people being in
housing that is in a different parish to their neighbour. Site A
was rejected for many reasons meaning that there is no need to
bring the land into one administrative authority at the present
time.
No residents from Wallingford during the preparation of their
neighbourhood plan expressed an interest in extending the boundary
– the land is agricultural and much more suited to a rural
parish than a town. 96% of residents from Brightwell cum Sotwell
however, during the preparation of the neighbourhood plan stated
that avoiding any further coalescence between the village and
Wallingford was highly important. 92% of residents highly valued
the fields, footpaths, views and walks to the north of the village
on the Sinodun Hills. The land is therefore highly valued by
residents of Brightwell cum Sotwell who were not consulted during
the preparation of the proposals.
The proposals completely fail to reflect the identities and
interests of the affected community – Brightwell cum Sotwell.
The land was identified in the preparation of the 2012 local plan
as significant in shaping the character of Brightwell cum Sotwell,
a view reinforced in the 2017 SODC Landscape Capacity Assessment.
The land is:
· An important element in conserving the character of the
North Wessex Downs AONB and its setting including the Public Rights
of Ways in Brightwell cum Sotwell
· Identified in the Minerals Safeguarding from Oxfordshire
County Council associated with adjacent fields in Brightwell cum
Sotwell
· A significant element on shaping the character of the
eastern boundary of the Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Conservation
Area
· A key strategic component in achieving separation between
the village of Brightwell cum Sotwell and Wallingford
The proposal by SODC under the community governance review to
transfer land formally known as Site A to Wallingford does not meet
any of the identified criteria for doing so and must be
rejected
|
|
12
|
|
Brightwell cum
Sotwell Parish Council strongly objects to the proposal
Please see the attached letter that sets out the reasons why the
proposal does not meet any of the criteria for selection.
Please also note that both the Wallingford Neighbourhood Plan Sub
Group and Wallingford Town Council have also asked for the proposal
to be rejected. Having looked at their own proposal in detail,
Wallingford Town Council resolved at full council on 25th April to
reconsider their own proposal and object to the proposal for the
land formally known as Site A to be transferred from Brightwell cum
Sotwell to Wallingford.
The proposal does not meet any of the criteria for selection and as
such must be rejected and the land in question retained by
Brightwell cum Sotwell.
The matter has raised considerable indignation within Brightwell
cum Sotwell, many residents asking why the proposals could get to
this stage without any consultation with our community
beforehand.
We thank SODC for the opportunity to comment.
|
|
13
|
|
I strongly object
to this proposal.
The proposed new boundary does not follow any legible or
established field, landscape, natural or footpath boundary that
would clearly help to define one community from another – the
proposed new boundary is in the middle of open fields. This would
add considerable confusion as to where the parish boundary is
– being based only on a historic and rejected planning
consultation (regarding which site was suitable for development
around Wallingford as part of the 2012 local plan review) and not
on any identifiable landscape or boundary features.
There is no requirement for any development to take place on the
land formally known as Site A until 2035 at the earliest, so there
would be no development that would result in people being in
housing that is in a different parish to their neighbour. Site A
was rejected for many reasons meaning that there is no need to
bring the land into one administrative authority at the present
time.
No residents from Wallingford during the preparation of their
neighbourhood plan expressed an interest in extending the boundary
– the land is agricultural and much more suited to a rural
parish than a town. 96% of residents from Brightwell cum Sotwell
however, during the preparation of the neighbourhood plan stated
that avoiding any further coalescence between the village and
Wallingford was highly important. 92% of residents highly valued
the fields, footpaths, views and walks to the north of the village
on the Sinodun Hills. The land is therefore highly valued by
residents of Brightwell cum Sotwell who were not consulted during
the preparation of the proposals.
The proposals completely fail to reflect the identities and
interests of the affected community – Brightwell cum Sotwell.
The land was identified in the preparation of the 2012 local plan
as significant in shaping the character of Brightwell cum Sotwell,
a view reinforced in the 2017 SODC Landscape Capacity Assessment.
The land is:
· An important element in conserving the character of the
North Wessex Downs AONB and its setting including the Public Rights
of Ways in Brightwell cum Sotwell
· Identified in the Minerals Safeguarding from Oxfordshire
County Council associated with adjacent fields in Brightwell cum
Sotwell
· A significant element on shaping the character of the
eastern boundary of the Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Conservation
Area
· A key strategic component in achieving separation between
the village of Brightwell cum Sotwell and Wallingford
The proposal by SODC under the community governance review to
transfer land formally known as Site A to Wallingford does not meet
any of the identified criteria for doing so and must be
rejected
|
|
14
|
|
We have all
welcomed many changes to Wallingford which have already impacted
the soul of the village, however I strongly disagree with this
proposal.
|
|
15
|
|
We live on the
boundary and do not want the lovely fields that protect our village
and home to be compromised. Both for wildlife, quality of life and
protecting the integrity of Brightwell-cum-sotwell a proud
community that will lose it's identity if merged with Wallingford
(which this boundary shift would do)
|
|
16
|
|
Strongly object,
will lead to Wallingford development into the future.
|
|
17
|
|
Unnecessary change
which will make development more difficult to oppose therefore
threatening the natural environment and beauty of the
area.
|
|
18
|
|
More land
grabbing, and the only reason I can think of is so developers can
build MORE houses. PLEASE STOP!!! Enough is enough!!! There is no
reason this land needs to be taken from Brightwell-cum-Sotwell.
What an absolute waste of time and resources!!!
|
|
19
|
|
Proposed changes
are detrimental to the ability of residence to protect the
environment and landscape around us including aspects already
agreed in our parish plan
|
|
20
|
|
I think it would
be disastrous for Brightwell cum Sotwell to lose any land to
Wallingford, presumably to make it easier for developers to take it
over. These local ancient villages should be preserved and their
boundaries respected.
|
|
21
|
|
As a village we
have worked hard to create a neighbourhood plan which supported
some 60 or so houses in the parish. This is currently being
modified to ensure the environment is better represented and any
development is better designed to meet the desires of parishioners.
Having been very careful about where new development could be
supported (N.B. we were not required to make provisions for any new
homes in the NP due to our status) I strongly feel that we should
not loose control on what is an important part of our parish that
maintains separation from Wallingford and affects the
AONB.
|
|
22
|
|
This is a cynical
attempt to erode the neighbourhood plan in order to enable yet more
new building. Brightwell does not want or need more high value
housing. There will be absolutely no benefit to the community in
giving up part of its parish. It is a shocking proposal and really
should not be allowed.
|
|
23
|
|
This is a
transparent attempt to override the Neighbourhood Plan for yet more
housing. There will be no supporting infrastructure because
developers always find ways to renege on any agreement. South
Oxfordshire already has a disproportionate development load and
this is simply another way to exacerbate this rampant and entirely
needless expansion.
|
|
24
|
|
Brightwell has a
neighborhood plan in place which protects us from over development
the last thing we need is more housing
|
|
25
|
|
We have our own
neighbourhood plan in Brightwell which I feel is there to protect
us from overdevelopment .
|
|
26
|
|
It seems like a
land grab by Wallingford, which is just not appropriate.
|
|
27
|
|
Coming from
Wallingford, I cannot fathom why this is necessary.
|
|
28
|
|
Brightwell cum
Sotwell hasn’t been consulted prior to this announcement, and
to remove land from the Brightwell parish is wrong. It’s
highly important to maintain a buffer zone between the encroaching
development of Wallingford, and it’s neighboring parishes.
Members of Brightwell parish enjoy its position as a rural, NOT
urban parish, and the outdoor activities / walking that it offers.
This proposal would absolutely threaten the ability to use the land
in this way, and goes some way to ultimately encorporating the
Brightwell parish into the larger Wallingford area, as has already
happened with Crowmarsh.
|
|
29
|
|
This land should
be retained within the Brightwell Parish as it sits within
it’s current boundaries with Sires Hill and the area of
outstanding natural beauty and Shillingford.
|
|
30
|
|
I cannot see any
valid reason for moving this boundary to Wallingford, other than a
'land grab'. Small sections of the land are included in the North
Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty that sits
immediately to the north and east of the area in question. The
fields are on the gravel terrace
and are an important part in protecting the impact of long views
across the AONB, to the east from the public view from Sotwell Hill
that are identified in the Brightwell cum Sotwell draft modified
neighbourhood plan.
The land between the village of Brightwell cum Sotwell at Sotwell
Hill House and the Wantage Road is an important element in
preventing coalescence between Wallingford and Brightwell. The
proposal would bring the boundary between Wallingford and
Brightwell even closer. Not only can we in B-c_s see no reason for
this change, even Wallingford Town Council resolved at full council
on 25th April 2022 to object to their own proposal.
It was also very disappointing that Wallingford Town council
didn’t contact Brightwell parish council to discuss before
putting forward their proposal.
|
|
31
|
|
If the land in
question comes under Wallingford, Brightwell will lose important
hold of fields that could be more easily developed into housing
under Wallingford. Brightwell has its own identity, it should not
be clustered in and become part of Wallingford. It’s unfair
and I strongly disagree with this proposal.
|
|
32
|
|
Area A sits with
far greater proximity to Brightwell parish and is part of the green
belt that cushions the ever growing town of Wallingford. There is
development everywhere currently and this area of outstanding
natural beauty from brightwell is a benefit to Wallingford
residents, wildlife, air quality and tourists.
|
|
33
|
|
There is no need
to add any additional land and sttongly feel that the boundaries
should be left unaltered.
|
|
34
|
|
Site A should
remain in the Brightwell parish to prevent diminishing our ability
to protect the setting of the Sinodun Hills Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty and prevent coalescence between Wallingford and
Slade End by maintaining a clear boundary.
|
|
35
|
|
The proposal
diminishes the ability of the parish to be able to protect the
Sinodun Hills area of outstanding natural beauty.
There is so much development at the moment having an impact on the
stunning beauty of the local area, bringing this area together with
Wallingford (next to a site that was proposed for development)
would increase the likelihood of losing the natural beauty. As both
a resident of the area, and someone who's business is located in
the village, I would strongly object to yet another part of the
village being removed or encroached upon.
It is an absolute no from me.
In addition, the proposed change of boundary does not fulfill any
of the proposed criteria for its change.
|
|
36
|
|
There is no viable
reason for this Brightwell land to be transferred to Wallingford.
In the neighborhood plan Brightwell was strongly against any
further encroachment onto our village however, in the Wallingford
plan, no-one requested that this land should be moved over.
Wallingford is already moving nearer and nearer to Brightwell. The
latest development on the bypass is practically on our doorstep
with all that entails, extra street lights, traffic etc etc.
Please don't take away any more of our village life that is so
precious to so many.
|
|
37
|
|
Impact on North
Wessex downs, possible over development of housing in the area. If
housing built local roads not suitable for all extra traffic
including heavy lorries. Why does Wallingford need this
land.
|
|
38
|
|
Incorporating this
area into Wallingford will further degrade the visual boundary
which keeps Brightwell as a distinct village and not a suburb of
Wallingford. Incorporating this land will instantly lead to more
housing and development.
|
|
39
|
|
This boundary
change would make it harder to prevent any future developments on
the land and reduce the parish’s ability to protect the area
including the Sinodun Hills AONB.
|
|
40
|
|
Brightwell-cum-Sotwell
has a strong Village Plan and as a result is managing to control
development in libe with the wishes of the majority of its
parishioners. It seems to me that Wallingford is not controlling
development and handing over responsibility for this site to
Wallingford is more likely to result in unwanted building, with a
detrimental impact on the local landscape and quality of
life.
|
|
41
|
|
Wallingford is
already packed with housing and there is no need to extend the
reach of the town.
|
|
42
|
|
1. The proposed
new boundary does not follow any legible or established field,
landscape, natural or footpath boundary that would clearly help to
define one community from another – the proposed new boundary
is in the middle of open fields. This would add considerable
confusion as to where the parish boundary is.
2. the land is agricultural and seems much more suited to a rural
parish than a town. It would be good for the village to avoid any
further coalescence between the village and Wallingford. As a
resident I highly value the fields, footpaths, views and walks to
the north of the village on the Sinodun Hills.
3. As a resident of the village I was not consulted about this
change.
4. The proposals completely fail to reflect the identities and
interests of Brightwell cum Sotwell.
5. The land was identified in the preparation of the 2012 local
plan as significant in shaping the character of Brightwell cum
Sotwell, a view reinforced in the 2017 SODC Landscape Capacity
Assessment.
An important element in conserving the character of the North
Wessex Downs AONB and its setting including the Public Rights of
Ways in Brightwell cum Sotwell
6. Identified in the Minerals Safeguarding from Oxfordshire County
Council associated with adjacent fields in Brightwell cum
Sotwell
7. A significant element on shaping the character of the eastern
boundary of the Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Conservation Area
8. A key strategic component in achieving separation between the
village of Brightwell cum Sotwell and Wallingford
|
|
43
|
|
The proposed new
boundary does not follow any legible or established field,
landscape, natural or footpath boundary that would clearly help to
define one community from another – the proposed new boundary
is in the middle of open fields. This would add considerable
confusion as to where the parish boundary is – being based
only on a historic and rejected planning consultation (regarding
which site was suitable for development around Wallingford as part
of the 2012 local plan review) and not on any identifiable
landscape or boundary features.
There is no requirement for any development to take place on the
land formally known as Site A until 2035 at the earliest, so there
would be no development that would result in people being in
housing that is in a different parish to their neighbour. Site A
was rejected for many reasons meaning that there is no need to
bring the land into one administrative authority at the present
time.
The proposals fail to reflect the identities and interests of
Brightwell cum Sotwell. The land was identified in the preparation
of the 2012 local plan as significant in shaping the character of
Brightwell cum Sotwell, a view reinforced in the 2017 SODC
Landscape Capacity Assessment. The land is:
· An important element in conserving the character of the
North Wessex Downs AONB and its setting including the Public Rights
of Ways in
Brightwell cum Sotwell
· Identified in the Minerals Safeguarding from Oxfordshire
County Council associated with adjacent fields in Brightwell cum
Sotwell
· A significant element on shaping the character of the
eastern boundary of the Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Conservation
Area
· A key strategic component in achieving separation between
the village of Brightwell cum Sotwell and Wallingford
The proposal to transfer land formally known as Site A to
Wallingford does not meet any of the identified criteria for doing
so.
|
|
44
|
|
As the land
involved is in a seemingly random area, part of an area of
outstanding natural beauty, and good agricultural land and the
proposal is not supported by the parties involved it does not seem
appropriate that it should should continue. It is part of a
beautiful area with magnificent views in all directions.
|
|
45
|
|
The proposed new
boundary does not follow any legible or established field,
landscape, natural or footpath boundary that would clearly help to
define one community from another – the proposed new boundary
is in the middle of open fields. This would add considerable
confusion as to where the parish boundary is – being based
only on a historic and rejected planning consultation (regarding
which site was suitable for development around Wallingford as part
of the 2012 local plan review) and not on any identifiable
landscape or boundary features.
There is no requirement for any development to take place on the
land formally known as Site A until 2035 at the earliest, so there
would be no development that would result in people being in
housing that is in a different parish to their neighbour. Site A
was rejected for many reasons meaning that there is no need to
bring the land into one administrative authority at the present
time.
The proposals fail to reflect the identities and interests of
Brightwell cum Sotwell. The land was identified in the preparation
of the 2012 local plan as significant in shaping the character of
Brightwell cum Sotwell, a view reinforced in the 2017 SODC
Landscape Capacity Assessment. The land is:
· An important element in conserving the character of the
North Wessex Downs AONB and its setting including the Public Rights
of Ways in
Brightwell cum Sotwell
· Identified in the Minerals Safeguarding from Oxfordshire
County Council associated with adjacent fields in Brightwell cum
Sotwell
· A significant element on shaping the character of the
eastern boundary of the Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Conservation
Area
· A key strategic component in achieving separation between
the village of Brightwell cum Sotwell and Wallingford
The proposal to transfer land formally known as Site A to
Wallingford does not meet any of the identified criteria for doing
so.
|
|
46
|
|
The reason(s) to
amend the parish boundary of Wallingford to include land at Site A
(currently in (currently in Brightwell-cum-Sotwell parish) –
apparently proposed by Wallingford Town Council – are not
readily apparent from the documents provided in Appendix CGR_F-S.
Prima facie, there is no obvious driver for this seemingly
arbitrary change. The proposed new boundary does not follow any
legible or established field, landscape, natural or footpath
boundary that would clearly help to define one community from
another – the proposed new boundary is in the middle of open
fields. This appears to clearly run contrary to the Assessment
criteria to observe natural or man-made boundaries that help to
clearly define one community from another. Furthermore, there seems
to be no obvious support for this change from those people in the
Brightwell-cum-Sotwell parish most affected.
In fact the proposal by SODC under the community governance review
to transfer land formally known as Site A to Wallingford does not
appear to meet any of the identified criteria for doing so it must
be rejected.
|
|
47
|
|
This proposal to
move land to Wallingford appears to have been made solely with the
intent of making it easier to get future planning applications on
Site A. There is no other logical reason for a need to transfer the
land. As a local resident of Slade End in BCS I strongly object to
this transfer and the potential it brings for direct conflict with
the BCS neighbourhood plan. In specifically reducing the space and
scope of the Wallingford Gap protecting Brightwell-cum-Sotwell as a
stand alone village/settlement. Secondly the development at
Highcroft is already going to place significant pressure on local
infrastructure and particularly the A4130. The potential of
Wallingford Town Council developing Site A following a transfer of
land significantly increases these pressures as well as destroying
protected views from the Sinodun Hills and the AONB. I repeat that
I strongly object to the transfer of this land from Brightwell to
Wallingford in the interests of maintaining the Brightwell
neighbourhood plan and the sanctity of this settlement.
|
|
48
|
|
i) There is no
justification to make this change. The proposed boundary does not
follow any boundary features and would cause confusion as to where
parish boundaries lie.
ii) Brightwell is a rural parish and 97% of residents stated they
wish to remain such. The land in question is an important buffer
with Wallingford to avoid any future coalescence.
iii) Brightwell Parish Council has a good track record in
representing residents and maintaining the rural environment, yet
also allocating housing development within its parish through the
Neighbourhood Plan.
iv) There is no requirement for any development to take place on
this land so there is no requirement to bring the land into one
administrative authority.
v) The land is agricultural and much more suited to a rural parish
than a town.
vi) As a resident of Brightwell I very much value walking the
footpaths to the north of the village on the Sinodun Hills and the
views and tranquility provided for recharging batteries and my
mental health.
vii) The land helps to shape the character of Brightwell and
conserving the character of the North Wessex Downs AONB. As such it
supports tourism to the area as an important setting for wellness,
despite the ever encroaching urbanisation of SODC.
|
|
49
|
|
This proposal
should be rejected. There is no logic to this proposal, it follows
no established or natural boundary and simply reflects an invidious
desire by Wallingford (a town that just wants to keep building
houses) to coalesce with Brightwell (a rural parish whose residents
value highly the fields, footpaths, views and walks on the Sinodun
Hills). This proposal fails to take into account the views of
Brightwell-cum-Sotwell residents, 96% of whom during our
Neighbourhood Plan preparation, stated that coalescence with
Wallingford should be avoided. This land was identified in the 2012
local plan and again reinforced in the 2017 SODC Landscape Capacity
Assessment as being significant to the identity of Brightwell (not
least in shaping the character of the eastern boundary of
Brightwell's Conservation Area and as an important element in
conserving the character of the North Wessex Downs AONB). This land
is agricultural...South Oxfordshire would do well to remember to
grow some food not just keep planting houses.
|
|
50
|
|
The land between
the village of Brightwell cum Sotwell at Sotwell Hill House and the
Wantage Road is an important element in preventing coalescence
between Wallingford and Brightwell. The proposal would bring the
boundary between Wallingford and Brightwell even closer, this
should not happen.
|
|
51
|
|
This proposal has
come as a complete surprise to the parish of Brightwell cum Sotwell
- incredible it wasn't discussed with the parish council before
hand.
It is an area that goes way back in history - a valuable part of
our English heritage. Once the boundary is changed so too does the
importance of keeping our villages intact in order to preserve our
historical heritage. There is a real risk of merging into
Wallingford and losing the unique identity of Brightwell cum
Sotwell .
As a resident of Brightwell cum Sotwell I strongly object to this
upsetting proposal and sincerely hope that my view is taken into
consideration.
|
|
52
|
|
1. It is not
clear what the purpose of the proposal is which suggests that there
is some other reason not identified by Wallingford
2. The land to the north of Wallingford, formally known as Site A
that forms the basis of the community governance proposals was
rejected for development on several grounds. A key consideration in
the decision was evidence from the SODC Landscape Capacity
Assessment published in September 2017. This concluded that Site A
was not suitable for development because:
3. Development on this site could lead to harm to views from the
North Wessex Downs AONB including the Public Rights of Way
4. Development would extend the built-form of Wallingford well
beyond the settlement limit and encroach into open countryside,
eroding the separation of the AONB
5. Access to the site via the eastern boundary could do harm to the
rural character of the Brightwellcum-Sotwell Conservation
Area
|
|
53
|
|
This seems to be
an attempt to turn Brightwell into part of Wallingford and allow
the shocking urban sprawl to extend into a clearly defined and
distinct village.
It would impact an area of AONB, ride roughshod over paths and
field boundaries which have been established for hundreds of years
and ultimately controbute to OX10 becoming an amorphous sprawl
which joins Didcot and Wallingford into a faceless blot of housing
estate.
|
|
54
|
|
Please see my
email of 28 April which cross-refers to the letter dated 26 April
from BcS PC. I support the letter in its entirety.
|
|
55
|
|
The land between
the village of Brightwell cum Sotwell at Sotwell Hill House and the
Wantage Road is an
important element in preventing coalescence between Wallingford and
Brightwell. The proposal would
bring the boundary between Wallingford and Brightwell even
closer.
It is working farmland far better included in a rural parish than
an urban one
|
|
56
|
|
This proposal
should be rejected as it is blatantly an attempt to provide
developments the opportunity in the future to push through
development that goes against the local plan and that would also
lead to the annihilation of the area between Brightwell and
Wallingford which residents in Brightwell are opposed
to.
|
|
57
|
|
There should be no
encroachment from Wallingford into the parish of
Brightwell-cum-Sotwell. The fields identified in Plan A are
historically part of Sotwell and are included in the B-c-S Village
Plan. There is a huge risk to the village Plan if Site A comes
under the ill-founded expansionist plans of Wallingford as
exemplified by the environmentally disastrous site B.
|
|
58
|
|
I strongly
disagree with any land in Brightwell cum Sotwell being moved into
Wallingford Parish
|
|
59
|
|
As a resident of
Sotwell I strongly object to the proposal to annex the land named
site A, The village wishes to keep its integrity and not get joined
to Wallingford and just become part of suburban sprawl. The green
farm land around the village is vital to the character and
appearance of the village.
More development on site A will also lead to more traffic, adding
to both noise and environmental pollution. Brightwell-cum-Sotwell
has a thriving community identity and should not be
compromised.
|
|
60
|
|
Further erosion of
the buffer between Wallingford and Brightwell should be
avoided
|
|
61
|
|
We strongly object
to the land known as Site A currently in the Parish of
Brightwell-cum-Sotwell being taken over by Wallingford. We also
object to the way in which this proposal has come about with no
prior consultation with the Parish Council of
Brightwell-cum-Sotwell.
We support the very detailed response provided by Cllr Sue Robson,
Chair Brightwell cum Sotwell Parish Council previously sent to
you.
|
|
62
|
|
No more
encroachment of the ridiculous expansion of Wallingford towards
land historically Brightwell-cum-Sotwell. No more risk of
Wallingford’s development by incorporation of
Brightwell-cum-Sotwell land.
|
|
63
|
|
I see no good
reason to change the boundary at this time. The current situation
provides good views from Brightwell of agricultural land, parts of
it are areas of outstanding natural beauty and there is a footpath
running along it used by residents to walk to Shillingford and the
river. If taken in by Wallingford , we could potentially lose this
if they sold the land to developers for housing. It could mean that
housing would run right up to the edge of Brightwell and not leave
a gap. This would eb against our Parish Plan.
|
|
64
|
|
Please refer to
the Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Parish Council letter strongly
disagreeing with the concept.
|
|
65
|
|
This land is the
last remaining buffer that keeps our village of Brightwell cum
Sotwell from being sucked into the ever expanding developments
around Wallingford.
We have all chosen to live in a village not a town. Please let it
be.
|
|
66
|
|
I believe that it
would be a huge error to alter the boundary in favour of
Wallingford. Once the boundary is altered I fear that would open
the opportunity for more land to be subsumed by
Wallingford.
|
|
67
|
|
This area is part
of the parish of Brightwell cum Sotwell and should not be allocated
to a new area.
|
|
68
|
|
My initial
reaction is one of disbelief that this proposal should have reached
this stage without any consultation with Brightwell-cum-Sotwell
Parish Council - the idea that land can be proposed for
appropriation in this way, and with seeming disregard for the
community most affected, shows a complete disregard, not only of
the ‘democratic’ principles under which we are
governed, but also shows a woeful misunderstanding of the issues
involved.
All prior reference to this site has surely been superseded by the
adoption of alternative sites for development of Wallingford and
the tacit understanding that the disputed (!) land is of no further
interest in the Wallingford development plan.
This being the case this appropriation should be dropped and the
motion of Wallingford Town Council be rejected both in the name of
fairness and indeed logic as events have overtaken this misplaced
proposal.
|
|
69
|
|
My initial
reaction is one of disbelief that this proposal should have reached
this stage without any consultation with Brightwell-cum-Sotwell
Parish Council - the idea that land can be proposed for
appropriation in this way, and with seeming disregard for the
community most affected, shows a complete disregard, not only of
the ‘democratic’ principles under which we are
governed, but also shows a woeful misunderstanding of the issues
involved.
All prior reference to this site has surely been superseded by the
adoption of alternative sites for development of Wallingford and
the tacit understanding that the disputed (!) land is of no further
interest in the Wallingford development plan.
This being the case this appropriation should be dropped and the
motion of Wallingford Town Council be rejected both in the name of
fairness and indeed logic as events have overtaken this misplaced
proposal.
|
|
70
|
|
This small area of
beautiful, agricultural land is all that now separates the village
of Brightwell cum Sotwell from the town of Wallingford. The land
borders an Area of Natural Beauty which is likely to be compromised
if the fields are not protected from further development.
As an agricultural area, it makes far more sense that the fields
are the responsibility of the rural and farming community of
Brightwell cum Sotwell rather than trying to compete with the
necessarily urban priorities of Wallingford Town Council.
In addition to this, Wallingford Town Council has subsequently
reconsidered its request to annex this land and is now joined with
Brightwell cum Sotwell Parish Council in opposition to this
proposal.
|
|
71
|
|
There is no
justification for moving the parish boundary. Historically
Wallingford has moved the boundary with Brightwell parish to
facilitate development to the detriment of Brightwell parish and
its unique character. This looks like another attempt and must
stop.
|
|
72
|
|
The land comprises
of flat rural fields, lying in open countryside that are currently
used as working agricultural farmland. A public footpath runs
through the land although not along the proposed new boundary. It
is fair to note that the present field pattern has been adjusted
over the past 50 years and the boundary between Sotwell,
Brightwell, Wallingford and Clapcot has evolved over the past 1000
years. As such the current field pattern does not directly reflect
the boundaries as they were originally laid out but this is a
matter of metres in most cases rather than entire fields. Small
sections of the land are included in the North Wessex Downs Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty that sits immediately to the north and
east of the area in question. The fields are on the gravel terrace
and are an important part in protecting the impact of long views
across the AONB, to the east from the public view from Sotwell Hill
that are identified in the Brightwell cum Sotwell draft modified
neighbourhood plan. The land between the village of Brightwell cum
Sotwell at Sotwell Hill House and the Wantage Road is an important
element in preventing coalescence between Wallingford and
Brightwell. The proposal would bring the boundary between
Wallingford and Brightwell even closer.
|
|
73
|
|
No residents from
Wallingford during the preparation of their neighbourhood plan
expressed an interest in extending the boundary – the land is
agricultural and much more suited to a rural parish than a town.
96% of residents from Brightwell cum Sotwell however, during the
preparation of the neighbourhood plan stated that avoiding any
further coalescence between the village and Wallingford was highly
important. 92% of residents highly valued the fields, footpaths,
views and walks to the north of the village on the Sinodun Hills.
The land is therefore highly valued by residents of Brightwell cum
Sotwell who were not consulted during the preparation of the
proposals.
The proposals completely fail to reflect the identities and
interests of the affected community – Brightwell cum Sotwell.
The land was identified in the preparation of the 2012 local plan
as significant in shaping the character of Brightwell cum Sotwell,
a view reinforced in the 2017 SODC Landscape Capacity Assessment.
The land is:
· An important element in conserving the character of the
North Wessex Downs AONB and its setting including the Public Rights
of Ways in Brightwell cum Sotwell
· Identified in the Minerals Safeguarding from Oxfordshire
County Council associated with adjacent fields in Brightwell cum
Sotwell
· A significant element on shaping the character of the
eastern boundary of the Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Conservation
Area
· A key strategic component in achieving separation between
the village of Brightwell cum Sotwell and Wallingford
The proposal by SODC under the community governance review to
transfer land formally known as Site A to Wallingford does not meet
any of the identified criteria for doing so and must be
rejected.
|
|
74
|
|
Brings us too
close to Wallingford. We are a separate village at the moment and
want to remain that way. Every piece of land taken by Wallingford
will be used as an opportunity to build more houses thus bringing
our village into Wallingford.
|
|
75
|
|
Having considered
the proposals, I can see no good reason for the change.
It was very disappointing that Wallingford Town council
didn’t contact Brightwell parish council to discuss before
putting forward their proposal.
|
|
76
|
|
I strongly oppose
this proposal. It's impossible to see any rational for it and a
cynical attempt to facilitate further development which would be
detrimental to the separate identity of the village.
|
|
77
|
|
I've been made
aware that Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Parish Council were not consulted
on this matter at all. Furthermore I understand that Wallingford
Town Council who initially proposed this boundary change are now
objecting to their own proposal so given that Brightwell PC was not
asked and doesn't want it's land taken away, and Wallingford TC now
don't want to take the land this should be wholly rejected without
delay.
|
|
78
|
|
The land is very
important to maintain a buffer between Wallingford and the built
areas of the Brightwell-cum-Sotwell parish. One of the attractions
of Brightwell (both to residents and visitors) is the village life
that being separate from Wallingford encourages. The nature of the
village will entirely disappear if 'absorbed' within the
Wallingford boundary.
|
|
79
|
|
This is just land
grab by Wallingford council to increase the area to put more houses
on this site without thinking of the infrastructure and amenities
that are required, as per site B. Do not do this as it will start
to implode on Wallingford itself.
|
|
80
|
|
I strongly object
to the proposal as the proposed new boundary does not follow any
legible or established field, landscape, natural or footpath
boundary that would clearly help to define one community from
another – the proposed new boundary is in the middle of open
fields. This would add considerable confusion as to where the
parish boundary is.
As far as I am aware no residents from Wallingford during the
preparation of their neighbourhood plan expressed an interest in
extending the boundary – the land is agricultural and much
more suited to a rural parish than a town. 96% of residents from
Brightwell cum Sotwell however, during the preparation of the
neighbourhood plan stated that avoiding any further coalescence
between the village and Wallingford was highly important. 92% of
residents highly valued the fields, footpaths, views and walks to
the north of the village on the Sinodun Hills. The land is
therefore highly valued by residents of Brightwell cum Sotwell who
were not consulted during the preparation of the proposals.
The land is:
· An important element in conserving the character of the
North Wessex Downs AONB and its setting including the Public Rights
of Ways in Brightwell cum Sotwell
· Identified in the Minerals Safeguarding from Oxfordshire
County Council associated with adjacent fields in Brightwell cum
Sotwell
· A significant element on shaping the character of the
eastern boundary of the Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Conservation
Area
· A key strategic component in achieving separation between
the village of Brightwell cum Sotwell and Wallingford
I believe that the proposal fails to reflect the identities and
interests of the affected community – Brightwell cum Sotwell
and therefore should be rejected
|
|
81
|
|
This will join
Brightwell cum Sotwell to Wallingford and Brightwell will no longer
be an independent entity.
|
|
82
|
|
I am greatly
concerned that this proposal will continue a process of diminishing
the separate identities of a village and its neighbouring town. It
is vitally important for Brightwell cum Sotwell villagers and
Wallingford residents that the character and history of our area is
protected.
There is also an inevitable suspicion, based on recent planning
experience, that once this land is no longer part of the village
bounds, the presumption will be that it becomes anonymous and ripe
for development.
Finally, this proposal has not been communicated to residents
responsibly or sensitively. It makes a nonsense of the commitments
made to the village when drawing up our neighbourhood plan, and
smacks of deep contempt for residents and cynical
motives.
|
|
83
|
|
This proposed
boundary change would represent another step in Brightwell losing
its village identity and is opposed by both Brightwell Parish
Council and Wallingford Town Council.
|
|
84
|
|
The reasons for
our strong disagreement mirror those stated in Jason Debney’s
email and letter to SODC of 26 April 2022, on behalf of Brightwell
cum Sotwell parish council, explaining in detail why this proposal
has been rejected by Wallingford town council and should not go
forward. As Jason says, the lack of prior consultation by SODC of
the councils affected is truly astonishing.
|
|
85
|
|
It extremely
important to Brightwell-com-Sotwell to retain its identity and
protect the countryside around it. This plan violates
both.
|
|
86
|
|
I can only imagine
that the sole purpose of this amendment from Wallingford Town
Council is provide further scope for building housing in their
local plan. I would strongly disagree with this proposal and would
also object to the application for this transfer. This would only
lead on to further applications for boundary changes in the future
to keep extending Wallingford and set an unnecessary and dangerous
precedent. I have been a current resident of the Brightwell Parish
for over 10 years.
In my opinion Wallingford Town Council appear to quite happy to
accommodate housing developers unreasonable request with little
resistance and have a very short term view of sustainability for
the town. I also believe that do get the best out of deal with
developers for the local residents.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Please don't build
anymore small houses on small plots. Give people living space and
areas to breathe.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
To
expand the boundary / increase Wallingford residents there must
first be a dramatic improvement in infrastructure including: * an
increase in GPS, * hospital upgrade to include A&E * a
police station * a full-time fire station * full-time traffic
enforcement, * pedestrianised town centre, * a
cycle/pedestrian safe route (bridge) across the bypass to get to a
mainline train station, * Wallingford council must either
provide the same level of maintenance of all new communal areas in
existing new developments or discount their council charges *
Thames Water must immediately adopt and maintain all pumping
stations and all other new water / sewage infrastructure that is
included in their billing
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
I
would want a more detailed report on why the changes are being
proposed, what the advantages and disadvantages of the change would
bring and any risks to this change.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Unfortunately
the opinions of local councils are usually expressed in the party
political interests of the ruling minority of local councillors,
whereas most of the relevant residents may be blithely indifferent
to such issues. Undue regard should not be given to such
expressions, but only to the facts expressed!
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
We
are surprised at the evident weakness of the application made by
Wallingford Town Council and the apparent lack of advice from SODC
which has led to a significant waste of resources by both councils
in subsequently considering this application. Surely a better
advisory process should prevent weak cases like this proceeding to
consultation?
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Only
to re-iterate that Shillingford Hill should be included as part of
Wallingford, and should be discussed either now or for future
reviews - we have nothing to link us with Brightwell-cum-Sotwell,
but plenty to link us with Wallingford.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
It
would have been good for Wallingford Town Council to have talked to
Brightwell cum Sotwell before they made their application to annex
land from a neighbours parish. It would be good, in future
reviews for this to be a requirement - dialogue at an early stage
is always good. The proposal has caused division between
neighbours that was totally unnecessary.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Fix
the roads! Limit additional housing
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
The
current building programme is way more extensive than our
infrastructure can support. As a teacher in Wallingford, I am very
aware of the extension to the secondary school. Even after the
completion of this, it is still going to be woefully inadequate a
few years down the line. Our roads are frequently crowded and it is
increasingly difficult for cyclists and pedestrians to move around
safely, never mind for traffic to actually get through junctions.
This is a rural county that should be striving to retain that
identity rather than to simply erode into a faceless suburban
sprawl.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
We
have to keep our villages otherwise we will loose our communities
we are Brightwell - cum-Sotwell not Wallingford
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Brightwell-cum-Sotwell
is a thriving community with its pre school and primary
school ,church’s ,village shop ,pub and Dr Bach centre
and cafe .We wish to remain a village and not become part of
Wallingford.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Lack
of consultation with Brightwell residents prior to this is
shocking. Had I not been made aware of this by local parish members
I would not have been able to give my view. It should be incumbent
on South Oxfordshire council to make contact with residents to
inform of proposals at an earlier stage in proceedings.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Emphasis
should be on keeping landscapes of natural countryside. Oxfordshire
county council keep building more and more housing which locals
cannot afford but also no extra doctors surgeries or schools. The
landscape keeps being destroyed and one village and town is being
merged into the other, losing vital identity which is historically
important.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Fed
up with villages being swallowed up by towns in the name of
development, which still does not help the housing difficulties for
the lowest paid, and often most useful, people in
society.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
The
treatment of the little remaining green land that surrounds
Wallingford and provides a boundary between brightwell and
Wallingford needs to be retained and protected. Wallingford has
already expanded beyond capacity for current
requirements.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Why
is this change being proposed?
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Brightwell
should remain a distinct village, and the Wallingford creep is
coming ever closer.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
The
proposal by SODC under the community governance review to transfer
land formally known as Site A to Wallingford does not meet any of
the identified criteria for doing so
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
I
strongly object to this hostile application for the transfer of
land.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
The
review was not publicised, I only find out about it by chance from
a neighbour. I am on various SODC mailing lists and would have
appreciated an email about the consultation in the way I receive
other information about planning, Local Plan
consultations.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
There
has been poor consultation on this. Why were residents of
Brightwell-cum-Sotwell not consulted. As far as I am aware I am on
SODC mailing lists for this kind of thing and I would have expected
it to be publicised more widely.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
It
seems to me that doing this for no obvious reason is a vanity
project and a complete waste of money.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Brightwell
cum Sotwell parish Council should have been consulted at the
beginning of the process.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Do
not do this!
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
The
boundary’s should remain as now.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
The
green band between Wallingford and Brightwell must be
protected
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Stop
any more housing and light industry in and around Wallingford. We
are already marooned within our villages because of excessive
housing development. ENOUGH.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
There
was no contact with BCS Parish Council about this. It is an
important boundary between Wallingford and the village of
Brightwell cum Sotwell. It is so important to residents in
Brightwell that there is clear land separation between the village
of Brightwell and the town of Wallingford, otherwise we are just
living in a suburb which is not why we chose to live in a beautiful
village.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Perhaps
in reviewing your Community Governance you should consider the
legality and the desirability of one community to appropriate land
from another without proper consultation - an element that has been
overlooked in this current debate.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
I
would support the objection as in the Brightwell cum Sotwell Parish
Council response.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
It is
very disappointing that Wallingford Town council didn’t
contact the Brightwell-cum-Sotwell parish council to discuss this
proposal before proceeding, and giving the impression of a
disregard to village feeling.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
As I
understand neither Brightwell parish council or wallingford town
council support this proposal.
|
|
|
Submitted by email
(1). Email part 1 of 2
|
Dear
'CGR'
I
would like to express my total opposition to the inclusion of
Site A within the Wallingford Boundary. It is not and should never
become a residential area.
I
support Wallingford Town Council and the Wallingford Neighbourhood
Plan Steering Group, in this.
Yours,
<name redacted>
|
|
|
Submitted by email
(2)
|
Further to
Wallingford Town Councils previous resolution to adopt Site A as
below, I can confirm this resolution has now been overturned at the
meeting of General Purposes held on Monday 25th April
2022 and is no longer required to be actioned.
If you could
please confirm for our records this motion has been received and
accepted that would be very much appreciated.
If you require any
further information, please let me know.
Many
thanks
Kind regards,
Michelle
Taylor
The
Town Clerk/RFO-Wallingford Town Council
|
|
|
Submitted by email
(3)
|
I'm writing to
object to Wallingford Town Council trying to amend the boundary of
the parish to include land at Site A, which is currently in
Brightwell-cum-Sotwell. Also I'm very surprised that they should
attempt to do this without first consulting Brightwell-cum-Sotwell
Parish Council.
Yours
sincerely,
<redacted>
(Brightwell-cum-Sotwell resident)
|
|
|
Submitted by email
(4)
|
Dear Sirs
As a long term resident of Brightwell cum Sotwell, I wish strongly
to object to the proposed changes of boundaries in respect to
Brightwell cum Sotwell land adjacent to Wallingford. You will have
received objections from Brightwell Parish Council which I fully
support. The suggested plans should not go ahead because of
relevant issues in the following areas:-
• Natural or man-made boundaries that help to define clearly
one community from another
• Housing developments that straddle parish boundaries,
thereby resulting in people being in different parishes from their
neighbours
• Effective and convenient representation of local residents
at parish level
• The extent to which proposals reflect the identities and
interests of the affected community.
Previous consultation concluded that Site A was not suitable for
development. because:
• Development on this site could lead to harm to views from
the North Wessex Downs AONB including the Public Rights of
Way
• Development would extend the built-form of Wallingford well
beyond the settlement limit and encroach into open countryside,
eroding the separation of the AONB
• Access to the site via the eastern boundary could do harm
to the rural character of the Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Conservation
Area
It is clear therefore that the land in question has a direct
relevance to the interests of the residents of Brightwell cum
Sotwell and none at present to the residents of Wallingford.
I trust that these plans will be re-considered and cancelled.
Yours faithfully
<redacted>
|
|
|
Submitted by email
(5)
|
I refer to the
letter dated 26 April from the Chair of Brightwell-cum-Sotwell
Parish Council concerning the proposal to alter the boundary
between Wallingford and Brightwell cum Sotwell as laid out in the
SODC community governance review. A copy of the letter is attached
to this email.
I am the immediate
past Chair of Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Parish Council and was closely
involved in the deliberations over Site A on behalf of the Parish
Council at the relevant time.
The attached
letter lays out cogent reasons for rejecting the proposal. It is
both unnecessary and untimely. Moreover, there is no justifiable or
logical reason for moving the boundary adjacent to the Slade End
Roundabout some 30 metres the north-west merely in order to have a
straighter line on a map.
I support the
submissions in the letter in their entirety. The proposal should be
dropped until such time, if ever, that there is an approved
development proposal to extend Wallingford which is impeded by the
existing boundary.
|
