What do you think of the proposed housing development?

The Parish Council would like to hear villagers’ views on the housing development being proposed by Sharba Homes, and so we are asking villagers to complete the following poll. Additional opinions can also be left using the comments section below, and the results will be sent on to the Parish Council before the next meeting in February.

Please share this with as many people in the village as you can, whether they are for, against or indifferent to the proposal.

The poll and comments will be available to complete until Sunday 15th February.

37 thoughts on “What do you think of the proposed housing development?

  1. Sharba Homes is a profit making organisation. It has no interest in the environment, how the village develops or whether it is instrumental in destroying Milton’s existence as a village. It’s business is to sell more and more houses.

    The proposal makes no arrangements
    a. for smooth transit on the already congested High Street with the increased traffic;
    b. for additional parking that would be required in the area;
    c. for the increased population making use of already over-subscribed facilities.

    In catering for the need for more homes, it is politically iniquitous and morally indefensible to inconvenience and force change on the lives of the resident population. Residents live here by choice for its village environment. The consequences of allowing this development are likely to be:
    a reduction in local house prices;
    a burden on all village facilities;
    a traffic black spot extending from one end of the High Street down the Shipton Road to the school and right into Shipton;
    even more development once the precedent is set to exceed the boundaries of the existing village [ Sharba Homes is likely to have options on other adjacent pieces of land].

  2. This development amounts to unacceptable harm to the AONB. It is not a sustainable proposal. The village cannot support such major development on the back of other recent development. We need smaller pockets of infill development, not major extensions into the pristine countryside.

  3. The proposed development is on raised land in an AONB and will be visible from all entry roads to the village and the A361 into Shipton under Wychwood and, as such, will have an adverse impact on the landscape. It will alter the character of the village, causing a significant impact on traffic. The application makes reference to accessible public transport which is in fact negligble – a car is necessary to access Shipton’s station at which only one or two trains actually stop a day and the PC is currently consulting on a non-viable irregular bus service. It is simply an unsustainable and contrary to government and local policies.

  4. This proposal is contrary to multiple planning guidelines. The proposed development constitutes major development, being bigger than the Chippy scheme already so classified, and would extend built structures into open countryside. It would harm the intrinsic qualities of the AONB in this location and harm the rural approach to Milton under Wychwood. There are no exceptional circumstances justifying such harm to the landscape. It is therefore contrary to policies BE2, NE3 and NE4 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011, paragraph 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the 2013 Cotswolds management plan as an Area of Outstanding National Beauty. Furthermore it is not development within the existing built-up area and as such is not in accordance with policy H6 the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 for medium-sized villages such as Milton. WODC already has a 5 year housing supply plan and this proposal is not in accordance with that plan either. The plan is for a major development on a site served only by single track roads to the outside and congested village roads to the inside of Milton and is therefore not remotely suitable for a large new estate. I could go on – the simple fact is that this plan is a greed-driven attempt by the developer and land-owner to drive an unsuitable money-making scheme through all planning guidance and without any respect for local democracy.

  5. Concreting over another green field in Milton under Wychwood is not the solution to housing shortages. I would like the additional impact of the 44 new homes on Green Lane to be considered in this application with regard to traffic, parking and local services.

  6. Smaller pockets of infill development would still provide the extra housing needed (or required by West Oxfordshire District Council). Building seems to be inevitable but it can be done without changing the rural character of the village. Compromise must be reached. If we don’t jump we will be pushed!

  7. The project is totally unacceptable. It conflicts with the draft local plan. It fails the sustainability teat. It violates statutory AONB status. It conflicts with overwhelming local opinion and will damage the village character.

  8. The proposed Sharba development is contrary to every principle that should guide any housing development in AONBs in Oxfordshire or elsewhere. The proposed development is obejctionable for the following reasons: it is much too large given the new housing that has already been added in M-u-W in the last two years; it is in the wrong place; it will create major traffic problems on the High Street and in a locality that is already much too inconvenienced by traffic; it will place excessively onerous additional demands on limited rural infrastructure; it will ruin the balance and congeniality of the charming rural neighbourhood of Upper Milton by over-burdening its human and ecological absorptive capacity thus destroying its ambience.

  9. The Government’s own National Planning Policy Guidelines advise, in an AONB there should no building on green field sites except in “exceptional circumstances”.
    There is nothing exceptional about a landowner and a speculator developer trying to get round those rules to make a killing. Sadly it happens all the time.

    This very large estate would destroy views from the surrounding countryside.
    It would mean approximately 140 extra cars driving through the village – which is already suffering from traffic issues.
    It would dramatically change the character of our rural village – very much for the worse.

  10. The proposed development seems completely at odds with planning policy (as stated in other people’s comments: AONB, greenfield etc) and at odds with the existing character of the village.

    It is too large a single development, in the wrong place within the village structure and ill considered timings-wise as we have yet to experience the impact on infrastructure of an additional 44 houses (as yet unoccupied).

  11. Where are the people from this development going to work? Many will commute to Oxford on an already over-capacity A40. As I see it Oxford’s green belt is pushing development into outlying villages for people who are actually going to work in Oxford.
    High Street is already a mess with parking and I do not see how the school would accommodate so many new children. Why not develop nearer a main road/commercial premises rather than in this little backwater? I am on the other side of the village, so have no vested interest, but cannot see that this development makes any sense.

  12. The site is one of the highest and most visually prominent places in the village. This is not good planning. These houses will be visible over a very wide area in the AONB.
    Traffic congestion is already a problem.70 houses could mean an extra 140 cars using the High Street. It would also mean a significant population increase, that will change the character of our village.
    The development is not sustainable. There is insufficient employment locally. Train and bus services are very poor so more commuting by road must result. This is against Government policy.

  13. This is an AoNB, the site is greenbelt agricultural land.
    The nature of the village already despoiled by the care home on green lane will be further changed and is against the interests of the current residents who came here to live in a rural environment.
    There are no employment opportunities so the buyers will have to come from urban areas and become commuters.
    There are few recreational facilities for young people and drug taking and vandalism which are already a problem will get worse.
    An urban style estate development will destroy the nature of the village and open the door for a further 330 houses and increase the population by at least 60 %.

  14. We can all see what is happening in Oxfordshire and other beautiful parts of the country. The government has effectively removed protection from them. The media is full of the injustice of it. The predatory multi millionaire Mr. Gladman and his like cover beautiful areas of countryside with copy cat housing estates that will turn our villages and towns into dormitory areas if we don’t resist. The so called affordable housing is always last on their list of priorities although it is always first in their advertising. These developments are solely for the benefit of the developer and the land owner. No one else. It allows them to make millions in very short time. No consideration is given to the needs of the local community. This is why developer’s profits are sky high and affordable housing is at an 8 year low.
    I cannot believe that Sharba is the one exception. This village and its democratically elected councillors have to fight this threat off with everything that it can. Nobody is taken in by Sharba’s generous offer to the residents (most of whom are country people) of an “ecological enhancement area” complete with bat and bird boxes, piles of logs for mice to play in and wooden boardwalks and explanatory signs. This is a country village, not a suburb – yet.
    If this proposed development is allowed to proceed a precedent will have been created and that is the greatest danger of all. Sharba, Gladman and all the others will come pouring in as they are already doing in other places. Don’t think it can’t happen here.
    Go on to the internet and see what has happened to villages like Buntingford, Leintwardine and Castle Carey. Google ROAR WITNEY RALLY FACEBOOK and see the devastation that has been caused by these sharks over the past couple of years.
    We are surrounded by areas of outstanding natural beauty. We are totally vulnerable. Let’s fight to defend it.

  15. The village is already congested and this is before the retirement homes have been occupied. A recent report from the police has also commented on the congestion around our school. This would have a negative effect on what is a beautiful village which is AONB.

  16. The proposals will be harmful to the character and appearance of the AONB. The government’s own National Planning Policy Framework gives AONBs the highest status of landscape protection.
    The site is one of the highest and most visually prominent places in the village. This is not good planning. These houses will be visible over a very wide area in the AONB.
    Traffic congestion is already a problem.70 houses could mean an extra 140 cars using the high Steet.
    It would mean a significant population increase, that will change the character of our village.
    The development is not sustainable. There is insufficient employment locally. Train and bus services are inadequate, so more commuting by road would result. This is against Government policy.
    We contend that the housing needs in the WODC Draft Plan are massively overstated, this development is NOT justified
    This development could lead to further, much larger development between Milton and Upper Milton

  17. The Sharba proposal and all other plans of this size are unacceptable here. The AONB must be respected together with the conservation areas. There is already 44 apartments coming on stream in Milton from which a further 50 vehicles plus can be expected to enter our roads. The Sharba development if sanctioned will add another 140 cars plus vehicles from visiting friends and relatives. The roads in the Wychwoods are already extensively used including commercial vehicles and top of the range HGVs. This results in the vibration of adjacent buildings especially those in the Conservation area. The Sharba plan for 70 houses is not suitable for this area.

  18. Right, so there are a few disadvantages to the proposed development:

    1) Extra traffic through the village and the dangerous road through Upper Milton;
    2) Extra parking problems in the village (and queues at the Co-op);
    3) Probability of the School and doctor’s surgery being swamped;
    4) Over capacity of the sewage system (and slowing broadband for the internet);
    5) Spoiling the village views and opening the door to more development;
    6) Reduction to the values of our homes.

    But what about the advantages to our village?

    ………..nope, I can’t think of any.

  19. SHARBA,” BESPOKE HOMES FOR DISCERNING PEOPLE “ has control over the two large arable fields plus the old pasture, (second field at the end of Jubilee Lane.) This pasture, by force of nature, is becoming a natural marshland habitat. The Sharba plans show their present development are to take place in the top right (behind Jubilee Lane) and the bottom right, (in the marsh) linked by a new public footpath. This leaves over two thirds of this land between these two areas that is described as: “other land within Applicant’s Control.”
    See the WODC planning application site boundary plan; drawing; map no. SL-P-03.
    What will Sharba Homes use this area for?
    Does anyone really want a man made Ecological Improvement Area deep in the countryside? Or is the plan to make this a feature within a future development?
    The developer’s “new” proposed entrance road is exactly in front of the village’s oldest cottage (1603 AD.) The High Street is a country lane at this point.
    Even if the land was in a less prominent visual situation (it is two metres and more above the level of the rest of Milton under Wychwood) – the impact of the extra traffic would amount to a more dangerous chaos than it is already. The planning for the Quart Pot Pub’s car park to be used for flats was turned down for this reason.
    There are no or very few jobs. This means it is unsustainable resulting in more commuters. The bus service is more reduced each month, and the train service is too far away. This will force people to use their cars.
    More cars! More large delivery vans due to increased internet shopping! Apart from the Wychwood’s, does Burford need any more traffic?
    Some people suggest that a bigger community means more customers for libraries, post offices, pubs and other businesses. Unfortunately this is not necessarily the case as our future appears to be more and more online.
    PLEASE DO NOT LET IT HAPPEN!

  20. We feel that the proposed development will have an overwhelmingly negative impact on the surrounding area. The infra structure is not able to support such a large development – it is already very difficult to drive into Milton from that end of the village owing to the amount of on street parking making a stretch of that road effectively single lane with passing places. With significantly more cars using that road, we feel that there would be even longer delays and dangerous conditions for cars as well as pedestrians and cyclists?. In our opinion, the road into Milton currently has too much heavy traffic on it with many people using it as a rat run to get between the A424 and the A361.

    The village resources are already over stretched – have you tried parking outside the Co-op, doctor’s surgery or school recently – or even driving past them? Even if additional parking could be found and provided, we feel there would be too much traffic, noise and pollution for a small village. . Additionally, we have not yet seen the impact of the development in Green Lane yet – other than the road outside which seems to have become narrower and more dangerous. Only once those houses are completed and fully inhabited will we see the true effect on the resources of the village.

    How can a development of 70 houses provide a more significant area of open space than is there already? Equally how could the biodiversity be enhanced by building on a green field site or the retention of the boundaries be an improvement to what is already there. We also question how another new housing development could enhance the setting and character of the village – particularly when it is built in an area which is visible from almost all sides. We would agree that there is a need for affordable housing in the village – but a development of 70 houses is not the way to do this. There is not enough village employment to sustain all the households so they will need commute for work – public transport links are poor so it would mean an increase in vehicle use – along already congested roads.

    The AONB designation for the Cotswolds means “An area of high scenic quality which has statutory protection in order to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of its landscape.” We do not feel that the development will conserve or enhance the landscape in any way at all.

    We feel that this development is not suitable at all for the village – we believe it will have a detrimental effect and materially change the character of it – and not in a beneficial way.

  21. If this proposed development is given the green light where will it end? If an AONB can be built on in a position which is very visible to the surrounding area and cause such a great impact on the landscape then no field will be safe in the future. This development will change the character of the village and cause more congestion to roads, the impact on the village from the development in Green Lane has not yet been felt by the village.

  22. Please do not let this happen! This proposal would completely change the character of Milton; it would undermine the very nature of AONBs; it would cause catastrophic traffic problems in the village; compromise the biodiversity around the village and be a blight and eyesore from miles around. Sharba are in this to make money and any talk of “enhancing biodiversity” is a cynical ploy to get permission to build.

  23. My objections are:

    1. Land within the AONB should be protected, as government policy states.

    2. Houses in this particular location would be very visible from the surrounding countryside, despite the mitigation measures, and would further damage the AONB.

    3. The additional population would overburden local services, where they exist, notably the roads and the primary school.

    4. The narrow high street that serves Milton is already very busy and hard to navigate. With cars from the 70 houses planned, plus those from the 44 units for over 55s due to open soon in Milton, the situation will only worsen. Demands for a new or wider roads will follow, with more housing infill and further development.

    5. Local and county councils should defend the character of towns and villages in this rural region on the edge of the Cotswolds. Development should be small scale, incremental and respectful of architectural traditions. The housing targets set by the Oxfordshire SHMA are wholly unjustified and have no democratic basis.

  24. I fully support Oliver Chapple and MUWAG. Judging by the number of posters in the villages the majority of people would agree with me. i also trust in the integrity of the Parish Council to take into account the views and concerns of all villagers and give no favour to particular individuals. Whether we have lived here for 1 year or a 100 years all of us have every right to voice our opinions, protect our environment and exercise our Human Rights. This proposal will have severe consequences on Health and Safety issues and our quality of life.Wherever you look traffic is already a major problem. Cars are racing through Upper Milton from 6.30 am onwards, Jubilee Lane and The Sands are fast becoming rat runs, while the High Street is already a speed track. The recent article in ‘The Wychwood’ by Cheryl Harrison, our new PCSO illustrates the parking/traffic problems at the school. It is becoming more and more impossible to shop locally because of the parking chaos at the Co-op. More houses means more cars. Statistics also show that 85% of road accident deaths in Oxfordshire are on country roads.(BBC LOCAL NEWS) We must also spare a thought for the family who live at 114 The High Street, directly opposite the entrance to this proposed housing estate. Where are their Human Rights? Surely they are entitled to a good nights sleep without the noise and lights of cars polluting their home. Taking into account that Sharba also has “other land within applicants control”(planning map WODC, shows three fields, including half of the Sands, under Sharbas control ) it seems very feasible that this is just the thin end of the wedge, destroying yet more of our countryside within the AONB.

  25. This project is the thin end of the wedge. More developments will undoubtedly follow. I agree that people have to live somewhere but attacking villages in this way and causing congestion of roads and services just because developers see what they think is an easy option is totally unfair to the people who live there.
    The roads around Milton are already well overcrowded with non existent parking. People have to work somewhere so extra cars (say 2 per new household means up to 140 cars) shooting around the overcrowded and potholded roads is totally unreasonable. The Doctors’ surgery is already packed to capacity and the wait to see a doctor is already very extended. We accept our way of life in Milton. Don’t interfere with it please! Go away!

  26. In a world where the population is rapidly expanding, children are starving,and climate change likely, it is neither sustainable,justifiable or ethical to permanently remove arable land from food production.
    With reference to Mr. Hartley’s undated letter to the Parish Council :
    Mr. Hartley can hardly describe himself as impartial any more than Mr. Chapple, who is MUWAG’S spokesperson.
    ‘The Paddocks’ could potentially release 44 local homes onto the market,either rented or freehold.
    Why should not people who have worked hard to gain ” the luxury of their own village home ” see its value increase above average? This is profit not greed as defended by Mr. Hartley. One person’s profit is another person’s loss, and not necessarily just financially. In the case of this development it would be environmental as well as aesthetic.
    If 50% of the houses are to be given into the strict control of a “registered social landlord” i.e. rented only, Mr. Hartley is unlikely to be able to stipulate ” local families only” This also means that the remaining 50%, which are presumably for sale, are UN-AFFORDABLE. They will NOT cater for all family budgets and be eligible for affordable mortgages.
    Wetlands and wildflower meadows can be established and maintained by grants, so Mr.Hartley could ecologically enhance The Sands without the need to build a housing estate.
    At the Parish Council meeting last year Mr.Hartley claimed he had no knowledge of any plans for further expansion. The way to dispel people’s fears of further development would be for Sharbas to remove their”applicants control” on the land outside this proposed development area.
    I am particularly concerned about the access to the estate. At that point the road is only 16ft wide,not wide enough for two HGV’s to pass.With 114 The High Street almost opposite, no thought seems to have been given to the safety of it’s occupants, let alone their quality of life, Perhaps Sharba/Hartley consider the damage to their quality of life as acceptable “collateral damage”.

  27. What a disaster this will be for life in this already overdeveloped village.Trying to drive in and out of Milton,whichever way you go, is a nightmare,what with the number of cars parked along the road and the frankly dangerous part of the road which has been narrowed due to the retirement development opposite Groves.I don’t know how the school or doctors surgery will cope and I fear that if this development gets passed it will be the fist of many such developments.There are hundreds of houses that have been given the go ahead in Carterton, Witney and other areas so there is no justification for building here, we are a village and want to remain so.

  28. We are relatively new to this village but from our experiences thus far, we support Oliver Chapple and MUWAG and object to this development on the valid planning grounds that MUWAG list and the other points made above.
    The current planning system requires the involvement of local residents which inevitably leads to differences of opinions between neighbours. Accordingly, such developments don’t just potentially blight our landscape; they can ruin lives.
    Additionally, we believe levels of road traffic in Milton to already be dangerously high and often too fast. Milton and Shipton are large villages and so drivers speed in order to get through them without perhaps giving due thought, for example, to the child scooting along the pavement.
    We also question whether as more houses have been built in Milton, the quantity of services and employment opportunities have risen. Instead, as the car owning population has grown, shops and services appear to have declined.
    The Estate Agent in Milton generally seems to offer a good selection of local properties, indicating adequate housing supply, as do numerous ‘For Sale/Let’ boards. People we have met who are struggling to find a house to buy or rent in this village generally seem to be after a good sized family home with a garden where there is ‘room to swing a cat’. We believe the density of the proposed development is far too high and will not offer a decent rural standard of living. This is immoral use of agricultural land in an AONB and suggests financial greed to be the motivation for development.

  29. I am very concerned about the road safety through Upper Milton. The lane is frequently used by dog walkers, jogger, hiker, horse riders and cyclists. More cars would make the road even more dangerous. With high grass verges there is just nowhere to escape speeding traffic

  30. 1) The Sharba Homes proposed site is totally inappropriate. It is on high ground and will be visible for miles around – a blot on the landscape and totally out of keeping in an AONB.

    2) Milton is in the process of absorbing forty new homes off Green Lane which is already going to cause considerable traffic congestion. We do not need any more traffic in Milton.

    3) Shipton Road (opposite The Green) is already heavily congested, not only with cars but also the Coop lorries which park there whilst making up to eight delivering per day. This area has already become dangerous for children, so once again I emphasise, the last thing we need is more traffic.

    4) The road from Milton to Upper Milton has become a rat run for people going to Burford, Carterton, Oxford and Swindon. We do not have the capacity for even more cars.

    5) Doctors at the Wychwood Surgery will be swamped by elderly residents from the GreenSquare Homes development of 44 apartments which are due to be completed very soon. To expect an additional 70 homes (dumped on the village) housing up to 240 people (adults and children) is down right ridiculous.

    6) Wychwood Primary School already has a serious parking problem during the school runs which would only be exacerbated by any new family homes being build, let alone the 70 proposed by Sharba Homes.

  31. I live on Jubilee Lane and the development will back on to my garden. So I’ll give a personal viewpoint.

    Traffic:
    There are two ways to the A329. One is via the High Street which offers residents little off-road parking, so drivers dodge in and out of the parked cars. The other way is down Jubilee Lane where most households enjoy off-road parking giving motorists a clear run and some drivers seem to enjoy the challenge of reaching 50 mph before braking for the sharp curve into the sands. During the morning peak the heavy traffic makes it a challenge to pull out of my driveway safely and in the evening rush it’s another challenge to reverse back in again. The development will only exasperate this situation.

    Ambiance
    My wife and I moved into Jubliee lane because we wanted to live somewhere quiet. If we had wished a more urban life style we would have moved to Chipping Norton or Witney.
    We deliberately wanted a house overlooking countryside. We deliberately did not want to look into and be looked into by neighbouring properties. We wanted to enjoy the luxury of a quiet and private garden. At day we did not want to look out on a housing estate and by night we did not want to see its lights. As somebody who lives in the village, this development does not ‘enhance the setting and character of the village’ for me at all. Selfish? I don’t know. But this is not why I choose to live in Milton_Under_Wychwood.

    Area of outstanding natural beauty
    The houses on the south-west side of Jubilee Lane are old – built in the 1800s. From the back they have pretty much the same view of the countryside as they did the day they were built. One day we will move on and it is a pity the nobody else will be able to look out and enjoy that view ever again.

  32. The heavy traffic in the village is already a problem, especially next to the areas where children walk/play: namely the school and the park. The safety of our children needs to be taken into consideration. The infrastructure of the village cannot cope with a housing estate where the majority of residents will commute by car to their employment. In addition to the congestion and increased pressure on the local services, namely the surgery and school, this proposed development is for a green field site in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – madness!

  33. Dear Sir/Madam,

    I have been apprised by my mother-in-law (a village resident) of the application by Sharba Homes to build 70 homes in Milton-Under-Wychwood. I do not live in Milton-Under-Wychwood, but have a long association with the area.

    To all those village residents who are unhappy about this proposal and wish for it to be rejected by WODC, I would like to offer some thoughts for your consideration (however, I highlight that it would appear that your time is limited to deliver a cogent and robust argument to defeat this application). My advice is based upon experience as both a City Councillor for 8 years (and having been involved in the planning process on numerous occasions) and having been the Chairman of an Action Group that managed to achieve the review by the Planning Inspectorate of two major planning applications. Given that the Action Group is attempting to object against the proposals of a commercial company and, ipso facto, their considerable financial wherewithal, my advice is as follows:

    1. The Action Group must form a Committee with a nominated Chairman/person (for all those ‘PC’ watchdogs out there). Don’t underestimate the level of work/activity involved/required of these individuals. You should have individuals with designated tasks: communication, marketing, research, etc., etc. Having a a hosted website with high level of functionality is very important in this day and age.

    2. The Action Group must raise funds to contract/engage a Commercial Planning Consultancy firm (sometimes made up of a number of ex-council planning employees) to represent the Action Group. I would advise that this financial requirement can be quite substantial should the Action Group subsequently hire the services of a decent Planning QC, instructed through a solicitor.

    3. The number of letters of objections, sadly, will not add sufficient weight to any arguments presented, unless the objections are based upon sound planning reasons and rationale; sadly, the weight of popular opinion has no significance as the planning process is a quasi-judicial method through which we, in England and Wales, execute our planning procedures. In sum, just sending loads of individual letters based upon subjective residents’ views will not make any great difference to the outcome.

    4. The argument of ‘the proposed development’ affecting the value of village high prices/values in the village is neither a valid, nor material, planning concern and carries absolutely no weight at all; my advice is to ‘get over’ this annoying fact of life; some times life is not fair. Also, do not get overly excited about the documents put forward by the applicant and what is stated therein; they are attempting to present a case – the Action Group needs to work to unpick and disprove the statements, alleged data and arguments put forward within the application (I have had a quick look at some of the application documents and there are clear areas of weakness presented).

    5. In terms of objection, your planning consultant should be able to come up with a vast array of valid reasons; alternatively, someone with an ability to research the numerous local and national planning rules and regulations, who is able to then summarize the salient aspects into a cogently structured report may be of help – planning is not a dark science; it is a (sometimes) complicated set of regulations that one might think are constructed in such a way to confuse the lay person!

    6. The Action Group must look to engage the stakeholders involved and a primary set are the Planning Committee of WODC. You must engage with them, write to them, speak with them, etc., etc. They should not proffer their opinions as to the merits of the application (or otherwise), but you are well within your rights to engage both your elected Councillor and the members of the WODC Planning Committee. Sadly, as well meaning as the Parish Council may be, the weight of any objection they present will, sadly, be minimal.

    7. Finally, once you have a nominated Chairman and properly constituted Committee, with delegated responsibilities, you need to be contactable in person (by people like me for instance, who wanted to offer this advice over the telephone/in person), so that you can make sure you act flexibly and with agility.

    In summary, I would urge you to act quickly; I think that the time provided for you to corral your objections (in terms of submission to the council) does seem short, but there is still time. My email contact details will be submitted with this website submission and I would be happy to engage with individuals seeking further advice, or thoughts on how to defeat this application. I have not provided my surname in signing off, as I would not wish to reveal the name of my mother who, as stated above, lives in the village.

    Yours faithfully,

    Mary Thomas.

  34. To the Clerk
    Milton Under Wychwood Parish Council

    Dear Sir/ Madan

    I write with reference to the planning application being made by Sharba for development of 70 odd houses on the Hartley’s land behind Jubilee Lane

    I would like to add my name to the list of many residents in the Wychwoods who are objecting to this scheme. There are a number of salient planning issues which have been well made by others in their objections with which I agree. I will not repeat them here for the sake of brevity but suffice it to say I feel this scheme is entirely inappropriate to our two villages by virtue of :
    • its inappropriate size and scale to the layout of the village as it currently exists
    • its adverse effect by virtue of its prominence on the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty within which the scheme is located
    • the limitations of the existing village infrastructure to cope with the increased population which will follow.

    Yours sincerely

    Jonathon Willson
    Court Farm
    Shipton under Wychwood

  35. The proposal will be a blight on our village, and the AONB. Unacceptable, not needed due to the totally flawed housing ‘plan’.

  36. I am writing to voice my strong objection to the proposed development of 70 new homes in Milton Under Wychwood.

    As a designated AONB this is an absolute disgrace. The land proposed is visible from a great distance away and will have a serious detrimental effect not just on the village but on the view for large distance around. Many of the businesses in this area depend on tourism and adding such a large and unsightly development on highly visible land is sure to have an impact on them.

    But more importantly even than the environmental reasons, it would completely tip the already stressed village over the edge. Our roads are in awful shape and deteriorating faster than the council can manage to patch them. It is so bad we’ve had to get the alignment done on our car twice in the past 4 months!! The High Street in Milton is already clogged and dangerous due to the amount of traffic and parked cars.

    Add to this the additional strain on the surgery and schools. Consider that the area has already lost 300 jobs with the closing of Caterham F1. And we haven’t yet felt the impact of the 40 new flats that are still under construction in the village. This development would significantly change the character of our village and be a serious detriment to the families who already live here.

    I already strongly believe that we are building too many houses than the area can sustain, but 70 more in our village is just madness!!

    Sincerely,
    Cynthia J. Toth

  37. I have sent a letter to the planning office expressing my reasons for not wanting the development, though after reading Mary Thomas’s comments, my fear of being completely ignored along with most of the other residents of Milton, have been confirmed. My concerns have been well covered by many other much more eloquent comments already posted on this site. All of which it seems will count for nothing in the face of the wolves circling our village. I have lived here about 25 years and stayed and brought up my family here because it is a nice place to live. It is deeply depressing to see the inevitable onslaught of developers only interested in making money.
    Big developments can only overload an infrastructure that is JUST about coping and is still good. ie road system, shop, school, doctors, sewage etc.
    I notice the developers control more land all around the proposed development. Hmm what would make them most money. Leave it as farmland? And once the precedent is set by the first development…..
    From the application you can see that the developers have already invested a huge amount of money in surveys, public relations and design etc. They are not about to let anyone who cares about this village stop them getting their rewards.
    I feel for the people in Jubilee Lane. It will really ruin their rural setting. I think the same is about to happen to me in The Sands as at present there are open fields at the back. (one of the many reasons for staying here) but the field behind us is ripe for developers. Only a matter of time before I get to stare at someones back wall instead.
    I know I live in The Sands which was itself a monstrous big development that must have spoiled the village in the 50s but why repeat the errors of the past.

Comments are closed.