Developer wins appeal to build homes on gardens

6:10pm Monday 28th January 2013 in News

A DEVELOPER has won an appeal for six “bizarre” and “dreadful” Botley homes on back gardens.

Cardinal Homes has overturned Vale of White Horse District Council’s refusal of the plan off Eynsham Road.

The Planning Inspectorate went against the council and approved the plan on appeal for three detached and three terraced homes with access from Marley Close.

The council said the scheme was “visually harmful” and “not compatible with or sympathetic to the character of the surrounding area”.

Fifteen residents and a 32-signature petition objected to the council with concerns about “overdevelopment”, parking and extra traffic.

But the inspectorate said the council was failing to get enough homes built to meet demand for the next five years and this counted in the plan’s favour.

It also does not have a policy against development of garden land and the scheme would make “more efficient use of land in this built up area”. Marley Close – a new community of eight homes – would be widened from 4.2 metres to 4.7 metres so two cars will be able to pass through the area at any one time.

It said: “Even in its enlarged form, Marley Close would remain a quiet, secluded, backland enclave.”

Related links

Marley Close resident Mehran Sahranavad told the council it would change the street to a “housing estate from a small cluster of houses at present”.

The council’s architects panel said the plan was a “bizarre arrangement with “dreadful” passages.

The council agreed it would be “visually harmful”.

Comments (11)

6:32pm Mon 28 Jan 13

oafie says...

Housing Estate LOL!

Visually Harmful.......Blimee
e how on earth do Oxford City Council have the cheek to say that.........they should start checking out a lot more of the studios/sheds that are advertised to rent out!
Housing Estate LOL! Visually Harmful.......Blimee e how on earth do Oxford City Council have the cheek to say that.........they should start checking out a lot more of the studios/sheds that are advertised to rent out! oafie

6:55pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Foxy Lady1 says...

This is an outrage, the land they will rip up and cover up is a green lung. It has a high percentage of native trees and really does need to be kept as green land. What are we doing, ripping up gardens everywhere and destroying wildlife corridors. Affordable homes for the needy, I think not, minimum price will be at least £375,000. It angers me when we destroy our habitat so inconsideratly. We then wonder why there are no bees, why we flood, etc, etc. What actually happens when we have covered every are with concrete? Will we show kids a picture of a tree in a book? Because future generations will not have a garden and only know what one is in perhaps a park unless they are next to be concreted.

NOT AMUSED. We keep building, we keep breeding, we cannot go on like this forever.
This is an outrage, the land they will rip up and cover up is a green lung. It has a high percentage of native trees and really does need to be kept as green land. What are we doing, ripping up gardens everywhere and destroying wildlife corridors. Affordable homes for the needy, I think not, minimum price will be at least £375,000. It angers me when we destroy our habitat so inconsideratly. We then wonder why there are no bees, why we flood, etc, etc. What actually happens when we have covered every are with concrete? Will we show kids a picture of a tree in a book? Because future generations will not have a garden and only know what one is in perhaps a park unless they are next to be concreted. NOT AMUSED. We keep building, we keep breeding, we cannot go on like this forever. Foxy Lady1

7:01pm Mon 28 Jan 13

Foxy Lady1 says...

This is Camerons and Osbornes vision to concrete the land and overturn local councils reasons to do things carefully and to ft in with the surroundings. It says "it will be a scheme to use the land more effectively in this built up area". That's half the point, its not built up, its homes with gardens. Gardens are much much more important to keep than brown field sites because of the different species and biodiversity held in them. No birds, no butterfiles, nothing. Garden grabbing should be a criminal offence. Pople need to think before letting their garden go. Dont sell your soul to the devil.
This is Camerons and Osbornes vision to concrete the land and overturn local councils reasons to do things carefully and to ft in with the surroundings. It says "it will be a scheme to use the land more effectively in this built up area". That's half the point, its not built up, its homes with gardens. Gardens are much much more important to keep than brown field sites because of the different species and biodiversity held in them. No birds, no butterfiles, nothing. Garden grabbing should be a criminal offence. Pople need to think before letting their garden go. Dont sell your soul to the devil. Foxy Lady1

2:14am Tue 29 Jan 13

Myron Blatz says...

What a mess! Decisions like this one just make a total farce of planning control in and around Oxford.
What a mess! Decisions like this one just make a total farce of planning control in and around Oxford. Myron Blatz

12:24pm Tue 29 Jan 13

oafie says...

Come on Oxford Mail can you not show us what these 'bizarre' and 'dreadful' homes' will look like...?
Come on Oxford Mail can you not show us what these 'bizarre' and 'dreadful' homes' will look like...? oafie

12:56pm Tue 29 Jan 13

King Joke says...

Foxy Lady, we have 'green lungs' where native trees and butterflies live. They're otherwise known as 'the countryside'. There is a danger of losing it if we keep developing low-density towns. To protect our countryside and accommodate our population we need to make much better use of the land in our towns and cities, and this means building on suburban back gardens and car parks.

While this will protect our countryside it has human benefits too, as higher population densities are much easier to serve with shops, doctors' surgeries, public transport and so on. Making facilities like this accessible by foot makes for a healthier population.
Foxy Lady, we have 'green lungs' where native trees and butterflies live. They're otherwise known as 'the countryside'. There is a danger of losing it if we keep developing low-density towns. To protect our countryside and accommodate our population we need to make much better use of the land in our towns and cities, and this means building on suburban back gardens and car parks. While this will protect our countryside it has human benefits too, as higher population densities are much easier to serve with shops, doctors' surgeries, public transport and so on. Making facilities like this accessible by foot makes for a healthier population. King Joke

4:33pm Tue 29 Jan 13

icba1957 says...

oafie wrote:
Housing Estate LOL!

Visually Harmful.......Blimee

e how on earth do Oxford City Council have the cheek to say that.........they should start checking out a lot more of the studios/sheds that are advertised to rent out!
Think you'll find it's the Vale! Their own fault, though, for not having a housing plan.
[quote][p][bold]oafie[/bold] wrote: Housing Estate LOL! Visually Harmful.......Blimee e how on earth do Oxford City Council have the cheek to say that.........they should start checking out a lot more of the studios/sheds that are advertised to rent out![/p][/quote]Think you'll find it's the Vale! Their own fault, though, for not having a housing plan. icba1957

8:05pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Foxy Lady1 says...

Actually it is gardens that have the biggest biodiversity for bees etc and different species of birds, insects, plants etc and gardens form widlife corridors. Unfortunately the destruction of gardens is far more dramatic on our declining bee population than large sprayed with cemicals farmers fields which already leave very little margins for plants. Gardens are there for a purpose to help flooding, naturally and provide us with pockets of nature. Not to mention if you have got kids, stick them out in the garden once in awhile, they might just like it if dad wants a go on the XBox.
Actually it is gardens that have the biggest biodiversity for bees etc and different species of birds, insects, plants etc and gardens form widlife corridors. Unfortunately the destruction of gardens is far more dramatic on our declining bee population than large sprayed with cemicals farmers fields which already leave very little margins for plants. Gardens are there for a purpose to help flooding, naturally and provide us with pockets of nature. Not to mention if you have got kids, stick them out in the garden once in awhile, they might just like it if dad wants a go on the XBox. Foxy Lady1

6:03pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Grunden Skip says...

Foxy Lady1 wrote:
This is an outrage, the land they will rip up and cover up is a green lung. It has a high percentage of native trees and really does need to be kept as green land. What are we doing, ripping up gardens everywhere and destroying wildlife corridors. Affordable homes for the needy, I think not, minimum price will be at least £375,000. It angers me when we destroy our habitat so inconsideratly. We then wonder why there are no bees, why we flood, etc, etc. What actually happens when we have covered every are with concrete? Will we show kids a picture of a tree in a book? Because future generations will not have a garden and only know what one is in perhaps a park unless they are next to be concreted.

NOT AMUSED. We keep building, we keep breeding, we cannot go on like this forever.
I did not hear your or anybodyelse up in arms when THOUSANDS of trees were ripped up and ACRES of countryside paved over to build on the back of Blackbird Leys. Strange that do you not think. Or was it because only poor people were affected, and not your poshy friends, who's houses were built on the same green land that the new ones will be.
[quote][p][bold]Foxy Lady1[/bold] wrote: This is an outrage, the land they will rip up and cover up is a green lung. It has a high percentage of native trees and really does need to be kept as green land. What are we doing, ripping up gardens everywhere and destroying wildlife corridors. Affordable homes for the needy, I think not, minimum price will be at least £375,000. It angers me when we destroy our habitat so inconsideratly. We then wonder why there are no bees, why we flood, etc, etc. What actually happens when we have covered every are with concrete? Will we show kids a picture of a tree in a book? Because future generations will not have a garden and only know what one is in perhaps a park unless they are next to be concreted. NOT AMUSED. We keep building, we keep breeding, we cannot go on like this forever.[/p][/quote]I did not hear your or anybodyelse up in arms when THOUSANDS of trees were ripped up and ACRES of countryside paved over to build on the back of Blackbird Leys. Strange that do you not think. Or was it because only poor people were affected, and not your poshy friends, who's houses were built on the same green land that the new ones will be. Grunden Skip

8:59am Thu 31 Jan 13

King Joke says...

Grunden, I think Foxy is happy to have countryside ploughed up, so people in middle-class suburbs can enjoy massive gardens.
Grunden, I think Foxy is happy to have countryside ploughed up, so people in middle-class suburbs can enjoy massive gardens. King Joke

4:23pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Mrs Suspicious says...

Vale Planning are already running scared of losing on appeal, even before this case. They put all their (our?) bets on the large developments (eg Grove Airfield) to fulfil the 5 year housing policy requirements - now we are left without a local housing policy and at the whim of every developer and land agent. We need local affordable homes for local residents. The Vale's local plan isn't likely to be approved until 2015 so we have at least another 2 years of this planning anarchy before local communities have a say in where affordable local homes should be built. The sites the developers want to develop are not the ones where locals can afford to live, or want to live. The Vale got us in this mess, but are not fighting to get us out of it.
Vale Planning are already running scared of losing on appeal, even before this case. They put all their (our?) bets on the large developments (eg Grove Airfield) to fulfil the 5 year housing policy requirements - now we are left without a local housing policy and at the whim of every developer and land agent. We need local affordable homes for local residents. The Vale's local plan isn't likely to be approved until 2015 so we have at least another 2 years of this planning anarchy before local communities have a say in where affordable local homes should be built. The sites the developers want to develop are not the ones where locals can afford to live, or want to live. The Vale got us in this mess, but are not fighting to get us out of it. Mrs Suspicious

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree