Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Core Strategy - Consultation Draft February 2014

The deadline for comment is next Monday, 7^th April, though Peter Day did indicate that submissions made a little after this date would be taken into account if he was warned in advance of when they would arrive.    Comments may be made:

· Online at https://myconsultations.oxfordshire.gov.uk/consult.ti/Minerals_Waste_Plan_Feb_2014/consultationHome (requires registration)

· By post using the template response form downloadable at https://myconsultations.oxfordshire.gov.uk/gf2.ti/f/34242/82533.1/DOC/-/MWCoreStrategy_Consultation_Draft_ResponseForm_Feb2014.doc (requires Microsoft Word or other compatible program)

· By e-mail to Peter Day at mineralsandwasteplanconsultation@oxfordshire.gov.uk, citing the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Core Strategy - Consultation Draft February 2014

· By post in your own words to:

Minerals and Waste Draft Plan Consultation
Environment & Economy - Planning Regulation
Oxfordshire County Council
Speedwell House
Speedwell Street
Oxford OX1 1NE

The Committee will be sending a response on behalf of the Society, but as always it will be most effective if as many as possible of you respond individually in your own words.

Points you may want to raise are:

· The consultation exercise has been far too low-key, with many local people completely unaware of its existence until the last minute.  The documents are too large for most people to print, and it would have been useful to have relevant sections projected at the meeting.

· The proposals are difficult to comment on in detail at this stage because they are so nebulous – all the detail is being left until later when planning applications are made.

· Failing to select any sites at this stage will lead to a free-for-all where prospective developers try to get their applications approved before others.  This is unfair to volunteers and private individuals who do not have the resources to respond effectively to many simultaneous applications.   It also imposes planning blight for an indefinite period on the entire area, which will reduce property values.

· There is a strong case (endorsed by David Cameron, MP) for establishing standard buffer zones round schools, houses etc., and this should be reflected in the boundaries of the search area.  Variations to the actual distances can be accommodated later in individual applications, but the principle of buffer zones should be firmly established at the outset.

· The map shows that much of the area is in the flood zones and is likely to have a serious effect on neighbouring areas during future flooding – in the absence of inert infill, the land would have to be “restored” as lakes which permanently change the landscape and do nothing to slow the movement of floodwater.  In addition, “wet” digging below the water table makes it impossible to preserve any archaeology.

· Following the recent extension to extraction at Gill Mill, there is no case at present for any further extraction north of the Thames, given the stated intention to extract as near as possible to the point of use and to balance extraction north and south of the Thames.

· Nothing has been said about getting minerals from north of the Thames to points of use in Didcot and elsewhere south of the Thames.  It is well known that drivers do not use the official route via the A40 to Peartree and thence via the southbound A34, and all attempts to enforce this have been futile because they are independent contractors.  Instead, they use Swinford bridge and the dangerously inadequate B4449, or flout the weight limit at Newbridge.  Even if they did use the A40, that road is well over capacity for much of the day.